Criminal Misc. No. M-33421 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-33421 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.11.2010 Kulwant Singh ....Petitioner V/s Manohar Lal and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned order dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional Sessions Jude, Fast Track Court, Mansa whereby he set-aside the summoning of respondents No. 1 to 4 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 452/336/323 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that ample evidence by way of statements of complainant witnesses CW-1, CW-2 and CW-3 was led before the court warranting summoning of the accused under the aforesaid sections. The revisional court, however, erred in ignoring the same and coming to the conclusion that summoning order suffered from a patent illegality. He has thus assailed the said order before this court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the revisional court came to the conclusion that accused were residents of Sirsa in Haryana whereas complainant belongs to village Sangha, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Criminal Misc. No. M-33421 of 2010 2 Mansa. The complaint was initiated at Sardulgarh on the basis of certain allegations. In support of allegations, complainant appeared as CW-1, his nephew (Karanjit Singh) appeared as CW-2 and his wife (Manjit Kaur) appeared as CW-3. They simply deposed in the same terms as the complainant. The revisional court found that neither any gun shot injury was received by the complainant nor there was any evidence to show that any empty catridges/pellets were recovered from the place of occurrence. In the absence of any medical or other evidence to support the version of the complainant, the revisional court set-aside the summoning order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal infirmity with the impugned order. Apparently, the accused were summoned to face trial on the basis of oral testimony of the complainant, his wife and his nephew which were almost similar in nature. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant made any complaint to police in respect of alleged incident or sought investigation of the matter by an investigating agency under the provisions of 156(3) Cr.P.C. Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to interfere under the inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. November 15, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE