IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26692 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 1, 2011 Suresh Chand Garg ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Punjab. * * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the criminal complaint no.2 dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is alleged to be the manufacturer of the Tapan Ghee of which sample was taken from Suresh Kumar-accused No.1. He contends that the said ghee was not sold by the petitioner to accused No.1 as no receipt/bill/cash memo has been produced by him to show that he had bought this ghee from the petitioner. He further contends that the learned trial Court while summoning the petitioner vide order dated 29.10.2007 has not applied its mind and merely on the presentation of the complaint by the respondent, has proceeded to issue summon to the petitioner which does not fulfill the requirement Criminal Misc. No. M-26692 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - of the settled preposition of law. The order summoning the person as an accused should show application of mind and at least the reasons for coming to conclusion as to why summon should be issued, must be mentioned therein. Some other grounds are also taken and pleaded for quashing of the complaint. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had been impleaded as respondent-accused on the statement given by Sh. Suresh Kumar-accused No.1, who claims himself to be the retailer of the petitioner and he had stated that the said ghee was bought by him from the manufacturer i.e. the petitioner. He on this basis contends that complaint has been rightly filed against the petitioner. His further contention is that the Court on receipt of the complaint mentioned that it has been checked and thereafter registered, which shows the application of mind. He accordingly contends that the summoning order does not carry any illegality for which it should be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. As of now the Court need not go into the grounds, which have been taken by the petitioner for quashing of the complaint qua him as I am of the considered view that at this stage in the light of the fact that the summoning order dated 29.10.2007 is a total non- speaking order which does not indicate even the minimum application of mind which is expected of a Court while initiating criminal proceedings against the accused to have been complied with. The order indicates that the complaint was presented on the date when the summon was issued. It had been merely checked and Criminal Misc. No. M-26692 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - registered and does not even disclose that the Court has gone through the same before issuing notice to the accused. While initiating criminal proceedings against a person, the minimum requirement is the application of mind by the concerned Court and the mentioning of the reasons for which the notice is being issued to the accused, which is absent in the present impugned order dated 29.10.2007( Annexure P-2). In view of above, I am of the considered view that order dated 29.10.2007 summoning the petitioner cannot sustain and is, therefore, hereby quashed. The present petition is allowed in the above terms. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Summoning order dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, qua the petitioner only is hereby quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It needs mention here that this Court had not gone into the grounds pleaded by the petitioner for quashing of the complaint and, therefore, it would be open to the petitioner in case needs so arises for him to approach the Court at a subsequent stage. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) November 1, 2011 JUDGE sarita