1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 10592-M of 2008. Date of Decision: 17.8.2009 *** Ravinder Gasso & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vikas Awasthy, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the Criminal Complaint titled as Harish Kaushal Vs. Ravinder Gasso & Ors. filed by respondent No.2 and also to the order dated 21.11.2006 whereby the petitioners and one Ramesh Arora have been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Kurukshetra for commission of offences under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper book carefully. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments as to the legality of the summoning order dated 21.11.2006 and has contended that the impugned order reveals non-application of judicious mind by the learned court below and has been passed in a mechanical manner. It has further been contended that the perusal of impugned complaint reveals nothing specific has been attributed to the present petitioners and the allegations, if taken are true, do not attract any of the offence, for which the petitioners and another have been summoned. It has further been stated that the complainant wants to grab this 2 plot and this assertion has been supported by Municipal Council, Thanesar in their reply submitted to the instant petition. The arguments have been scanned. 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 although the complainant besides examining himself as CW1 also produced Subhash Sudha and Rajiv Kaushal as CW2 and CW3 respectively, but there is no reflection in the impugned order as to what is the nature of evidence produced by the complainant which proves sufficient for the court below to summon the petitioners under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal Code. It is no doubt true that the Court is not required to delve deep into the allegations of the complainant, the evidence produced thereto and give detailed reasons for summoning, but at the same time it cannot be forgotten that by bringing two witnesses to support the allegations, the criminal law can be set into motion. 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 and another, pursuant to order dated 21.11.2006, which since has been set aside and then to pass afresh order on the point of summoning, but without being influenced by any observation made in this order. The complainant to appear before the Court concerned on 8.9.2009. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 17,2009 Jiten