IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25922 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 8, 2011 Yogesh Aggarwal ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab Mr. Gaurav Mohanta, Advocate for respondent No.2. * * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Challenge in this petition is to the complaint dated 19.07.2006 and the summoning order dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur, vide which the petitioner has been summoned to appear and face trial for the commission of an offence under section 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 506 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner contends that while passing order dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure P-2), the mandatory provisions contained in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with by the Magistrate, which requires that where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, he shall postpone the issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigaton to be made by a police officer or by such Criminal Misc. No. M-25922 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against him. He contends that neither the Magistrate has himself inquired into this aspect nor has it been so discussed in the summoning order which may even suggest that the provision as contained under Section 202 Cr. P.C. has been taken note. He contends that while issuing the summoning order, the Magistrate has specifically mentioned therein that he has considered the complaint and the preliminary evidence led by the complainant and thereafter, proceeded to issue the summon accordingly. He prays for setting aside quashing of order dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure P-2). On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the allegations, as made in the complaint, have been fully supported by the complainant in his preliminary evidence led by him before the trial Court which clearly makes out the offence against the petitioner for which he has been summoned, therefore, the impugned order need to be sustained. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Perusal of the impugned order dated 11.07.2007 does not even suggest that the Magistrate has taken into consideration the provision contained in Section 202 Cr. P.C., as the order does not indicate that any inquiry either by him or through a police officer or by anyone else has been got conducted by the Court to satisfy himself with regard to there being sufficient ground to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. In the light of non-compliance of the mandatroy provision as contained in Section 202 Cr. P.C., impugned Criminal Misc. No. M-25922 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - order dated 11.07.2007 cannot be sustained. The present petition stands allowed. Impugned order dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure P-2) is hereby quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) November 8, 2011 JUDGE sarita