1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 18333-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.10.2009 *** M/s Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The following order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 4.7.2007, necessitated the petitioners to approach this Court and to seek quashing thereof as also the complaint in which the same has been passed:- “Complaint received. It be registered. Accused be summoned for 30.7.2007” This Court while issuing notice of motion to the respondent, was prima facie of the view that the said order has been passed without application of mind, leaving the other questions raised on behalf of the petitioners, open. At the threshold this Court refrain from commenting on the merits of the case, as it may cause prejudice to any of the parties. However, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that nothing has been discussed therein as to what were the nature of allegations and the material produced by the complainant to substantiate the same, which proves sufficient for the court below to summon the petitioners for violation of the 2 provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Central Rules, 1971. Summoning of an accused in a criminal offence is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of routine. The order summoning a person as an accused must reflect that the Court has applied its mind and has examined the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral as well as documentary. The Court cannot sit as a silent spectator and has to first undertook the test of prima facie case against a person against whom the offence is complained of. In view of this, the impugned order passed by the learned court below cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction to first withdraw the process issued against the petitioners pursuant to order dated 4.7.2007, which since has been set aside and then to pass afresh order on the point of summoning of the petitioners, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 28,2009 Jiten