CRM No.M-29024 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-4.10.2010 Mukesh and others ...Petitioners Versus Sushila ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Nemo for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The symposium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that originally Smt.Sushila wife of Mukesh (respondent-wife) filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P3) against the petitioners- accused for the commission of offences punishable under sections 494 and 120-B IPC before the JMIC Ferozepur Jhirka. The Magistrate, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, summoned the accused to face trial for the aforesaid offences, by virtue of summoning order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P2). 2. Aggrieved by the summoning order (Annexure P2), the petitioners- accused filed a petition, which was dismissed as well by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide order dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P1). 3. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and filed the present petition for quashing the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2) and the complaint (Annexure P3), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. 4. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners on the previous date of hearing i.e. on 30.9.2010 and the case was adjourned for today for arguments. Today again, as no body is appearing on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, I have CRM No.M-29024 of 2010 2 no option but to go through the file in order to decide the present petition. 5. As is evident from the record that the trial Magistrate summoned the petitioners-accused under the indicated offences. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision, vide order (Annexure P1), the operative part of which is as under:- “After having heard both the sides at length, going through contents of the complaint, preliminary evidence on record and order under challenge, at the very outset, I have no hesitation in concluding that from the complaint, statements of CW1 Sushila and CW2 Sohan Lal and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, prima facie case punishable under Sections 494/120-B IPC appears to be made out against the revisionists. The order under challenge is reasoned, speaking as per allegations in the complaint and preliminary evidence on record. In revision courts have limited jurisdiction and can interfere only if the order under revision is patently wrong, illegal, suffers from impropriety and is against record. But the order under challenge is reasoned, speaking and as per provisions of law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the same which requires interference. So, there is no merit in the revisions.” 6. Meaning thereby, the trial Magistrate has rightly summoned the petitioners-accused and the revisional Court has recorded the valid reasons in the impugned order and rightly negatived their claim in this respect. No such orders can be set aside (in second revision, which is otherwise barred) in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.PC, unless the same are illegal and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been mentioned in the grounds of petition to set aside the impugned orders. Therefore, no ground to interfere with the same is made out. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 4.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge