Crl. Misc. No.M-8550 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-8550 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 14-07-2011 Madan Lal alias Balwant Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Sewa Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 5.3.2010. The petitioner who is the complainant preferred a complaint against the present respondents alleging forgery of a lease deed purportedly executed by one Rishi Pal pertaining to agricultural land. The respondents against whom accusations were made were summoned to face trial and learned Trial Court while doing so, passed the following order:- “I have heard counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file very carefully. I am of the view that there is a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471, 120-B IPC only. However, there is no prima facie against the accused persons under Sections 511, 379 of IPC. So, all the accused persons are ordered to be summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471, 120-B IPC for Crl. Misc. No.M-8550 of 2010 (O&M) 2 1.9.2006 on filing of PF and RC etc.” Aggrieved by the order of summoning, the respondents preferred a revision petition which was accepted by the Court of Revision by observing that the summoning order did not reflect an application of mind and the matter was thus remanded back to the learned Trial Court to re-determine the issue in the light of the observations that have been made by the Revisional Court. This is the cause of grievance to the petitioner who contends that after the passing of summoning order, the proceedings remained pending for four years and during this interregnum pre-charge evidence was led by the petitioner and since the matter has been remitted back , the whole process has to be gone into afresh and the entire pre-charge evidence led by the petitioners, and its effect would stand washed off. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that apart from the fact that order of the Trial Court summoning the respondents reflected some application of mind, but the Revisional Court committed two patent errors; one by ignoring the fact that there was application of mind by the learned Trial Court which may not be to its entire satisfaction but still showed some reasons and the second that if it was dis-satisfied with the order impugned in revision then the Revisional Court should have applied its mind to the facts of the case and determined the controversy on merits rather than remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh decision. He has placed reliance on case titled as Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports vs. Roshanlal Agarwal and ors 2003(2) RCR (Crl.) 110 in support of his contention that Magistrate who issues the process does not necessarily have to examine the complaint and the Crl. Misc. No.M-8550 of 2010 (O&M) 3 allegations set out therein to find that if there are sufficient grounds warranting the summoning of the accused persons and rather it has merely to look into the allegations if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against persons against whom accusations have been made. Similarly, reliance has been placed on case titled as U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. M/s Mohan Meakins Ltd. and others 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 421 to say that in the event of the Revisional Court coming to a conclusion that the order of the Magistrate was deficient in content then the Court of revision ought to have decided the matter by looking into the controversy rather than remanding the matter back. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on case titled as M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 AIR SC 128 to say that setting into motion the criminal process is a serious affair and it should not be done in a cursory manner. Reliance has been placed on case titled as State of Karnatka vs. L.Munishwamy reported as 1977 AIR SC 1489 to contend that even though the power of the Magistrate to summon an accused is wide in discretion, but it is incumbent for the Magistrate to look into the material on record and conclude that such material if not rebutted would result in conviction or reasonable possibility thereof before summoning the person accused. I have considered the matter. The controversy thus is restricted to a narrow compass where this Court is to examine as to whether the Court of revision while passing the impugned order committed a illegality in remanding the case back. The Court at this stage refrains from commenting upon the validity of summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl. Misc. No.M-8550 of 2010 (O&M) 4 light of the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.Pollution Control Board's case (supra) wherein it was concluded in para 7 as follows:- “7. It was unfortunate that the Sessions Judge himself did not look into the complaint at that stage to form his own opinion whether process could have been issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the averments contained in the complaint. Instead the Sessions Judge relegated the work to the trial magistrate for doing the exercise over again. After the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the second order issuing process, the Sessions Judge quashed the said order on the second occasion also and stated thus: “Having scrutinized the array of accused persons in this complaint, I have felt that since no specified role in the flowing of the polluted effluents into the river Gomti has been assigned to any of the present applicant nos. 2 to 11, the law laid down in the Delhi Municipal Corporation case referred to above requires that the impugned order summoning the present application Nos. 2 to 11 must be quashed.” This would have been more prudent as the Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the proceedings had been in limbo for a period of 4 years wherein sufficient pieces of evidence were recorded during the pendency of the revision petition and by remanding the matter back, the clock would have to be put back by all these years resulting in a frustrating state of affairs for the parties to the litigation, specially the complainant who was desirous of a quick disposal even though such a situation may be at the advantage of the person who is facing accusation. Crl. Misc. No.M-8550 of 2010 (O&M) 5 The matter is thus remitted back to the learned Court of Revision to dispose of the matter in the light of the aforesaid observations. Since the matter has been considerably delayed, Revisional Court is directed to decide the matter within three months of the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Revisional Court shall also ensure that it will not grant any untoward adjournment to any of the party while deciding the revision and it shall be positively concluded in the time frame set up by this Court. Disposed of. In the meantime, Trial Court shall not proceed with the matter any further. July 14, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge