1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 15140-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.8.2009 *** Gurdarshan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Sanjeev Kochhar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.S. Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is seeking quashing of summoning order dated 28.8.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, by dint of which, on a complaint preferred by respondent, the petitioner has been summoned under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, besides quashing of order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the revisional Court, dismissing his revision filed against order dated 28.8.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and paper- book perused. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments as to the legality of the order dated 17.4.2009 vide which the revisional Court dismissed the revision of the petitioner. It has been contended that various contentions were raised before the learned revisional Court in context to various judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, but none were discussed while dismissing the revision petition by observing that they are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Thus, it has been contended that a non-speaking order passed by the summoning court in a mechanical manner receives the endorsement of the revisional Court, without application of mind to the facts of the case. There is force in the contention of learned 2 counsel for the petitioner. No doubt the revisional Court has not to delve deep into the merits and de-merits of the case, but it can also not be forgotten that the Court cannot sit as a silent spectator. In case of abuse of process of law and the cases where the allegations, if taken at their face value, make out no offence, it has every power to interfere. But a perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional Court makes it abundantly clear that the revisional Court while dealing with the revision of the petitioner failed to return any finding as regards the legality or otherwise of the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate, in relation to the allegations of the complainant and evidence produced to substantiate the same and the pleas raised by the petitioner in his revision petition. In view of this, the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court below dated 17.4.2009 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the revisional court below with a direction to pass afresh order on the revision of the petitioner, on merits, but without being influenced by any observation made in this order and after issuing notice to the respondent- complainant. The petitioner to appear before the Court concerned on 8.9.2009. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the respondent, since he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feel dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 17,2009 Jiten