CRM No. M-20354 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-20354 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2009 Umrao Singh ...Petitioner Versus The High Court of Punjab & Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has preferred this petition to impugn the order dated 3rd July, 2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. The operative part of the said order reads as follows:- “As per the direction given by Sh. A.K. Bimal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, accused has failed to appear in the court. In these circumstances, the accused is now summoned through bailable warrants for the sum of Rs.2000/-. Bailable warrants be issued for 08.09.2009.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above order is absolutely illegal and deserves to be quashed. According to him, the order is clear abuse of process of law and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has acted beyond his jurisdiction while passing the same. CRM No. M-20354 of 2009 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition. It is evident that the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari against his summoning in a complaint preferred by the respondent. The revision petition was dismissed vide order, Annexure P-1 dated 4th June, 2009. The parties were directed to remain present before the trial court on 3rd July, 2009. However, on 3rd July, 2009, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court. Resultantly, his bailable warrants were issued in the sum of Rs.2000/-. Instead of appearing before the trial court and furnishing bail bonds, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari before this court. I am of the considered view that the present petition is totally frivolous and has been filed only to delay the proceedings before the trial court. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order or any ground to quash the same. I, thus, dismissed this petition with Rs.5000/- as cost to be remitted to Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 10, 2009 'rajpal'