IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 69 of 2006. Date of Decision: 25. 08.2008. _______________________________________________________ Jyoti Mankotia. Petitioner. Versus Chandra Singh. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?.. No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing complaint No. 205-I-04/101-II-04 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the respondent is a lawyer practicing in District Courts at Una. The petitioner herein and her husband Vikaram Singh had filed a petition in the Court of District Judge, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce by mutual consent. Vikaram Singh was represented by respondent-lawyer and the petitioner by her own lawyer. On 29-5-2004, the statements of both the parties, i.e, husband and wife were recorded in the Court in the presence of their respective Advocates and at the end of statement each of their respective lawyers put their. Consequently, the divorce petition was allowed and the lawyers went to occupy their respective seats within the court complex. The respondent-lawyer was sitting with Vikaram Singh and his other relatives around her in the litigant Hall. Some litigants and lawyers were also sitting in the said Hall. It is alleged that all of a sudden, the petitioner without any rhyme or reason came about 1.45 P.M. along with her father Shri Mastan Singh who is - 2 - also an accused in an angry mood and assaulted the respondent-lawyer intending to dis-honour her. The petitioner caught hold of the respondent-lawyer from her throat and slapped her without any provocation. Her father Shri Mastan Singh is alleged to have instigated her and both of them started abusing the respondent loudly and threatened to kill her. Some fellow lawyers intervened. The report was also lodged with the Police on the same day. The matter was also brought to the notice of then District and Sessions Judge and the Additional Superintendent of Police, as the Superintendent of Police was out of station. The Bar Association condemned the incident aforesaid. False news was also allegedly published in the daily newspaper at the instance of the petitioner and her father damaging the reputation of the respondent. As such, the complaint was filed in the trial Court under Section 323, 355, 500 and 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. against the petitioner, her father and the newspaper. Preliminary evidence was led by the respondent and on consideration of the matter vide order dated 13.9.2004, the petitioner was summoned under Section 323, 355 and 506, I.P.C. along with other accused. The order of summoning reads as under :- “13.9.2004: Present: Complainant in person with counsel Sh.H.S.Thakur,Adv. Heard. From preliminary evidence adduced by complainant and allegations made in the complaint I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 under sections 323,355,506 IPC and against accused Nos. 3 to 5 under section 500 IPC. Let these accused be now summoned on filing list of witnesses, PF etc. for 30.10.2004. Sd/- Addl.C.J.M.Una (H.P.)” The instant petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that the aforesaid order is not a reasoned order and no case was made out from the evidence on record for summoning the petitioner. - 3 - Heard. Chapter-XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the commencement of the proceedings before the Magistrate. Section 204 under Chapter XVI of the Code particularly deals with the issuance of process. A very wide discretion has been given in the matter of issuance of process by the Court which is to be used with caution. The test is not whether there will be conviction but whether a prima facie case has been made out. Before directing the issue of process, the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the material before him and ascertain not only that there is sufficient ground but also the nature of the offence as issuance of summons or warrant would depend upon it. Prima facie, the statement of the respondent duly supported by the statement of Vikaram Singh and Smt. Negi Kaur makes out a case for summoning the petitioner for the offences under Section 323, 355 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing a detailed order while issuing summons. It has been held by the Apex Court in U.P. Pollution Control Board –v- M/s Mohan Meakins Limited, AIR 2000 SC 1456 that the process issued to the accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate has not passed the speaking order. As a matter of fact, at the stage of an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, it does not partake a character of a full dress trial which can only take place after the process is covered under Section 204 of the Code, as per procedure. But during the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the complainant whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put a proposed accused on a regular trial and no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such an inquiry. In the instant case, the Magistrate has specifically ordered the petitioner to be summoned under the specific Sections finding sufficient - 4 - grounds to put the petitioner on regular trial. Therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order and there is no requirement to pass a speaking order as to how he was satisfied to come to that conclusion. Hence the petition is dismissed. The record of the trial Magistrate be returned forthwith. (Surinder Singh) Judge. August 25, 2008. (bm)