CRM No.M-17363 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-17363 of 2010 Date of Decision:17.11.2010 Om Pal ......Petitioner Versus Ramesh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.S.K.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the essential facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition, is that a private complaint under Sections 148, 149, 379, 452, 457, 506 and 34 IPC, filed by petitioner-Om Pal, against the respondents was dismissed by the trial Magistrate vide order dated 07.11.2009(Annexure P-2). 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order(Annexure P-2), the petitioner- complainant filed the revision petition, which was dismissed as well by the Revisional Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 22.02.2010(Annexure P-4). 3. The petitioner-complainant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders of the Courts below and filed the present petition for quashing the impugned orders(Annexures P-2 and P-4). 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 5. As is evident from the record that the petitioner filed the complaint against the respondents and the trial Court sought the police report under Section CRM No.M-17363 of 2010 2 202 Cr.P.C., wherein the contents of the complaint were found to be false. The complaint was held to have been filed by the petitioner, just as a counter-blast to a criminal case registered against him vide FIR No.183 of 2005 under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. However, the main cosmetic argument of the learned counsel that the Courts below fell in error in dismissing the complaint and revision petition of the petitioner, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. As, it is now well- settled principle of law that summoning of accused is a very serious matter and any person cannot be summoned as an accused in a routine manner, without any prima facie evidence against him in this regard. 7. An identical question arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749. After considering the relevant provisions of summoning, it was observed (para 28) as under:- “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 8. Moreover, the lower Revisional Court has re-examined the matter. CRM No.M-17363 of 2010 3 The plea of the petitioner did not find favour and the same was ignored by it vide impugned order(Annexure P-4). The operative portion of which is, as follows:- “The perusal of the order passed by learned lower court goes to show that the learned lower court after recording preliminary evidence had sent the complaint to the police for the further investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and has returned clear finding to the effect that the present complaint has been filed by the complaint just as counter blast to the FIR No.183 of 2005 under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered against the complainant and his father on the allegations of causing injuries to respondent Ramesh on 12.10.2005. Moreover, learned lower court has also returned specific finding that no injury whatsoever had been caused by the respondents to the complainant despite the fact that they had opportunity to cause injury to the complainant. Learned lower court has also returned finding that the respondent could have caused injury to the complainant despite they were allegedly armed with deadly weapons on 12.10.2005 and this all shows that the facts had been alleged by the complainant just to implicate the respondents in a false case. In this way I do not find any ground to substitute my findings on the same set of facts when there is no procedural or other error committed by the learned lower court on the face of record. The proposition of law laid down in Anil Saran's case and Inder Raj Malik's case relied by the complainant is not at all disputed. But these authorities are not helpful to the complainant at all. Moreover, at the same time, the Magistrate is not to pass a mechanical order as a postman and summoning order without application of mind. In this way, I do not find any impropriety and illegality committed by learned lower court while dismissing the complaint of the complainant-revisionist nor there is any misreading of evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice. Consequently, I do not find any substance in the revision petition filed by the revisionist. According, the same is dismissed. Trial Court's record along with copy of this order be returned and file after due compliance be consigned to record room.” 9. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have recorded the valid reasons and rightly negatived the plea of the petitioner in this relevant connection. Such CRM No.M-17363 of 2010 4 well-articulated orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside in this second petition (which is otherwise barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.), in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned orders. Therefore, the same are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 17, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE