IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.19765-M of 2008 Date of decision : 03-02-2009 Mahabir Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Raj Kumar & Another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint dated 9-8-2004 (Annexure P/4) and summoning order dated 8-10-2005 (Annexure P/6) as petitioner have been summoned to stand trial u/s 420/323/506 IPC. Two-fold submissions has been made before this Court for quashing of the complaint and summoning order. Firstly, it has been contended that complainant had filed a complaint in the Court of CJM, Panipat. The Court invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had sent the complaint to the police. Police had investigated the complaint and had submitted cancellation report. Sh. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner has admitted that once cancellation report was submitted, Court has ordered reinvestigation. He state again Investigating Agency submitted cancellation report. Contention raised is that the Court of CJM, Panipat could not issue process against the accused without taking cancellation report into consideration. This Court had examined the legal position in case of Malkiat Singh Dhaliwal Vs. Manpreet Kaur Dhaliwal and another in Crl. Misc. No.M-4542 of 2008 relying upon a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Pakhandu and others Vs. State of U.P. And another, 2002, Crl. L.J. Crl. Misc. No.19765-M of 2008 -2- 1210 had held that once the report has been submitted by the police, the Court may upon the original complaint or a protest petition proceed to act under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued. A perusal of summoning order show that after the report was submitted to the police, the Court of CJM, Panipat had allowed the complainant to adduce preliminary evidence. Raj Kumar was examined as CW-1, Deepak Kumar as CW2, Som Pal as CW-3, Surta Singh as CW-4 and the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/9 were also tendered. Thereafter Court taking into consideration the statement of witnesses examined in preliminary evidence and documents on file, had issued the process. No fault can be found with this approach of the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by Coordinate Bench in Crl. Misc. No.26382-M of 2007 decided on 11-8-2008 and has contended that in that case, the Court had held that no reasons were given by the Court when in a criminal complaint, process was issued. The facts are entirely different, in that case, FIR was lodged and the cancellation report was accepted. Therefore the Court had held that when in FIR case cancellation report has been accepted, reasons should have been spelt. That being not so, the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner has to fail. Second argument raised before this Court is that the land which is subject matter of agreement to sell was under acquisition and notification for acquisition was issued. Counsel has submitted that notification of acquisition is a notice to public at large. Therefore it cannot be held that petitioner had concealed the factum of the issuance of notification of acquisition and had committed offence of cheating. For offence of cheating mens rea is an Crl. Misc. No.19765-M of 2008 -3- essential ingredient which can only be found from the evidence led by the parties. Therefore no ground is made out to entertain present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and the same is dismissed at this stage. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 3-2-2009 JUDGE manju