1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 23545-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.8.2009 *** Sangat Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Rajinder Kumar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is seeking quashing of criminal complaint dated 15.1.2003 titled as Rajinder Kumar Vs. Sangat Singh & Ors, filed by the respondent and also the orders dated 10.6.2004 whereby the petitioner and others have been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Batala for commission of the offence under Sections 427, 447, 430 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC and dated 15.5.2008 by virtue of which their revision petition against the summoning order has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and paper- book perused. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments as to the legality of the order dated 15.5.2008 vide which the revisional Court while dismissing their revision observed that it has not to go into the merits of the case and the powers to quash the summoning order and discharge are not vested in it. Thus, it has been contended that a non-speaking order passed by the summoning court in a mechanical manner receives the endorsement of the revisional Court, without application of mind to the facts of the case. There is force in the 2 contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt the revisional Court has not to delve deep into the merits and de-merits of the case, but it can also not be forgotten that the Court cannot sit as a silent spectator. In case of abuse of process of law and the cases where the allegations, if taken at their face value, make out no offence, it has every power to interfere. But a perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional Court makes it abundantly clear that the revisional Court while dealing with the revision of the petitioner failed to return any finding as regards the legality or otherwise of the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate, in relation to the allegations of the complainant and evidence produced to substantiate the same and the pleas raised by the petitioner and others in their revision. In view of this, the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court below dated 15.5.2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the revisional court below with a direction to pass afresh order on the revision of the petitioner and others, on merits, but without being influenced by any observation made in this order. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 1.9.2009. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 11,2009 Jiten