IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-25758 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.8.2011 Col.Amarjit Singh (Retd.) and another ....Petitioners Versus Avtar Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer that complaint No.193/1/8 dated 31.1.2008 and the consequent summoning order dated 23.7.2009 be quashed. This in fact is a second petition. The first petition that was filed before this Court was disposed of vide order dated 28.7.2011 by observing that the complaint and the summoning order did not deserve to be quashed as the pleas which had been raised before this Court were to be tested on the basis of evidence and further that the complaint revealed a direct role attributed to petitioner Daljit Singh Gujral of having projected himself a Managing Director of the company which is accused of duping the complainant. The petition was disposed of with an observation that the petitioners were at Crl.Misc.No.M-25758 of 2011 (O&M) -2- liberty to take all the pleas which were available to them before the learned trial Court at an appropriate stage. The instant petition has now been filed with a prayer that the impugned order of summoning is erroneous as the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. were not complied with. The aforesaid plea was never raised by the petitioners when they approached this Court in the first instance. There is no explanation worth the name which has been given in support of the aforesaid plea having not been taken. Apparently, these are delaying tactics which the petitioners are indulging in, in order to evade the complaint and the consequent summoning order. The plea of non- compliance of Section 202 of the Code is a plea which reflects upon the procedure and the ostensible reason for incorporating Section 202 Cr.P.C. in its amended form was to obviate the abuse of process of law given the propensity of certain people to file frivolous complaints beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts to give rise to inconvenient litigation and subject persons to the process of criminal law unnecessarily, and, therefore, when a person is summoned, such a plea should be raised in the very first instance at the time a person submits himself to the process of law. This is essential because the Court gets an opportunity to examine the process. The petitioners had the option to take such a plea in the very first instance but it was not taken and eventually after losing one round of the battle before this Court they have once again chosen to file another petition with the plea that there is non-compliance of the amended provisions of Crl.Misc.No.M-25758 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Section 202 Cr.P.C. I am afraid the Court is of the opinion that the instant petition is nothing but a malicious attempt to delay the proceedings and is, thus, misconceived. Dismissed. 26.8.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss