Criminal Revision No.908 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.908 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 12, 2011 Aditya Gaur and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM; HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr.A.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gourav Dhir, D.A.G.,Haryana. Mr.Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed assailing order dated 2.4.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising the powers of revisional Court was pleased to summon the accused-petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B IPC, 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. The brief facts of the present case are that a private Criminal Revision No.908 of 2011 2 complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has summoned the accused- revisionists to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. However, learned trial Magistrate did not summon the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Feeling aggrieved complainant had preferred a revision before learned Sessions Judge, which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 2.4.2011 summoning the accused to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC as well. Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate has vehemently argued that before the Revisional Court petitioners herein were neither impleaded as respondents nor were heard by the Revisional Court before issuing the summoning order under Section 304-B IPC. Further argued that only Course open before the Revisional Court was to remand the case for further enquiry to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 398 of the Cr.P.C. to find out as to whether accused should be summoned to face trial under Section 304-B IPC as well. Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate appearing for respondent no. 2. has fairly contended that if Magistrate has refused to summon the accused or has discharged the accused, Revisional Court cannot take cognizance against the accused or cannot issue the summoning order. However, the only Course open to the revisional Court was to remand Criminal Revision No.908 of 2011 3 the matter to the Magistrate to pass fresh orders after holding fresh enquiry as contemplated under Section 398 of the Cr.P.C. Section 398 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further enquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.” After the perusal of Section 398 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the opinion that if learned Magistrate dismisses the complaint or refuses to take cognizance or to issue summoning order or discharges the accused the Revisional Court for the reasons recorded in writing, can remand the matter to the Magistrate to to find out as to whether accused should be summoned or charged as the case may be to face trial for the offences alleged to have been committed by him. If accused is not summoned by the trial Magistrate, Revisional Court should dispose off the revision only after hearing the accused sought to be summoned. Present petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Criminal Revision No.908 of 2011 4 Learned counsel for the parties have stated that now the trial has been transferred to Patiala from Kurukshetra, therefore, matter should be remanded to the Sessions Judge, Patiala to decide the revision in the light of the observations made herein above. Parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge, Patiala on 22.12.2011. Record of the revision shall be transmitted to the Sessions Judge, Patiala by the Kurukshetra Court. Sessions Judge, Patiala shall either himself hear the revision or shall transfer the same to any other Additional Sessions Judge, who shall dispose off the revision in accordance with law within 90 days from the date of first appearance of the parties before the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala. (Alok Singh) December 12, 2011 Judge BB