IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO 93 of 2010. Decided on November 11, 2010. Randhir & another …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & another ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Sh. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For respondent No. 1 Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G., and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. For respondent No. 2 Mr. D.S.Kainthla, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by order, dated 3.7.2008, copy Annexure P-4, by which they have been summoned in a private complaint case, instituted by respondent Mohan Lal. 3. A complaint under Sections 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, has been filed against the petitioners, by respondent Mohan Lal, in the Court Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahar. The said complaint was filed on 17.1.2008. After recording preliminary evidence, consisting of the statements of complainant and two other witnesses, impugned order, summoning the petitioners, was passed. 4. A report was lodged with the police also, with respect to the same incident, as is complained in the complaint, instituted by Mohan Lal. Copy of the complaint is Annexure P-3. The report, which was lodged with the police, was entered in the Rojnamcha, copy of the entry is Annexure P-1. On the basis of this report Annexure P-1, proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, under Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. Those proceedings were dropped by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 24.9.2009, copy Annexure P-2. 5. Contention, raised on behalf of the petitioners, is that when the matter had been reported to the police vide report, copy Annexure P-1 and cognizance of the matter had been taken by the Executive Magistrate (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampur Bushahar), cognizance of complaint, copy Annexure P-3, could not have been taken. Another contention raised on their behalf is that, in any case, - 3 - when the proceedings before the Executive Magistrate came to an end, vide order dated 24.9.2009, copy Annexure P-2, proceedings in the complaint case, could not have continued. 6. Both the contentions are without merit. Complaint was filed, about a month after the report, copy Annexure P-1, was lodged with the police. Order, summoning the petitioners, was passed on 3.7.2008. Order, dropping the proceedings under Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C., initiated on the basis of the police report, copy Annexure P-1, was passed on 24.9.2009. 7. Nature of the proceedings, initiated on the basis of report, copy Annexure P-1 and complaint, copy Annexure P-3, is different. Proceedings initiated on the basis of report, Annexure P-1 were in the nature of preventive measure, while proceedings, initiated on the basis of complaint, copy Annexure P-3, were of punitive nature. Therefore, proceedings initiated on private complaint can go on. 8. Consequently, petition is dismissed. November 11, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.