CRM No. M 20099 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 20099 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.12.2010 Bhoop Singh ........ Petitioner Versus K L Manhas .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S S Salar, Advocate for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint dated 25.03.2008 titled K L Manhas v. Bhoop Singh, under Section 499, 500, 501 IPC pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, order dated 26.03.2008 (taking cognizance) and summoning order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the out set, did not argue the case on merits and reserved his right to raise all these question on merits at the appropriate stage if so required. However, the CRM No. M 20099 of 2009 2 aforesaid complaint and the summoning order was impugned by raising a legal issue. It was contended that the petitioner is a resident of Rewari, whereas, the respondent is a resident of Panchkula. Therefore, the petitioner is residing out side the jurisdiction of the trial Court. In spite of the same, the petitioner has been summoned without following the mandate of Section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure incorporated by the amendment of the year 2006. The only question, in hand, is as to whether it was mandatory for the trial Court to conduct inquiry as per the mandate of Section 202(1) Cr.P C or not. The said issue in the facts of the present case being squarely covered by the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of Savera Sidhu v. Harleen Sidhu and another (CRM M 7689 of 2009 decided on 14.10.2010). It was incumbent upon the Magistrate to hold an inquiry as envisaged in the said Section and comply with the mandate of Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:- “202 Postponement of issue of process:- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of a offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit (and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction) postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either enquire into the case himself of direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for CRM No. M 20099 of 2009 3 the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.” It is not disputed that no inquiry as envisaged under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. was held. Learned counsel for the respondent states that he has instructions to state that the respondent has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Magistrate to pass an appropriate order after complying with the provisions of amended Section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner is residing outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court as well as the statements of learned counsel for the parties who are agreed that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the Savera Sidhu v. Harleen Sidhu and another (CRM M 7689 of 2009 decided on 14.10.2010), the summoning order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Magistrate to pass an appropriate orders after complying with the amended provisions of Section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Provision. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 22.12.2010 mohan