Crl.Misc. No.M-581 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-581 of 2011 Date of decision: 9.02.2011 Bachan Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present: Mr.GBS Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- Daya Chaudhary,J. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of summoning order dated 13.03.2010, (Annexure P.3), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, and the order dated 13.10.2010, (Annexure P.4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the investigation conducted by the police the petitioner was declared innocent and he was placed in column No.2 in the report submitted by the police under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for Crl.Misc. No.M-581 of 2011 2 the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence but the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib as well as the order passed by the learned revisional court. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed in column No.2 in the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitted by the police at the time of preparation of challan. Although a specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner but he was found innocent in the investigation conducted by the police by mentioning that he did not inflict any injury and that he was not even present at the time of alleged occurrence. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as proposed accused cannot be summoned only on the basis of statement of witnesses but if such material is there on record on the basis of which he can be convicted, then order of summoning can be passed. Although discretion is with the court and that discretion is to be exercised very sparingly with great caution and care only and the court is satisfied that the offence has been committed by such person and he can be convicted on the basis of that evidence. In the present case trial court has recorded its satisfaction that Crl.Misc. No.M-581 of 2011 3 specific injury was attributed to the present petitioner whereas a wrong finding has been given during investigation that the petitioner did not cause any injury and that even he was not present at the place of occurrence. The Medical record as well as the statement of the complainant also reveals that the petitioner caused injury on the person of the complainant. As far as the plea of alibi is concerned that cannot be discussed at this stage as it is also a matter of evidence which can be appreciated during trial. I, therefore, find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the facts mentioned above and settled proposition of law there is nothing in the order which may call for interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. (Daya Chaudhary) Judge February 9, 2011. rp