IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.36294 -M of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2011 NADEEM AHMAD JAVED ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. MK Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Challenge in this petition filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is to Criminal Complaint No.489 dated 29.7.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 426, 423, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-5), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, and order of summoning dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure P-6), whereby the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, initially, an FIR was lodged after a complaint had been filed by respondent No.2 and the case was referred under sub-Section (3) of Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation was concluded. No incriminating material could be found against Criminal Misc. No.36294 -M of 2010 (O&M) 2 the petitioners, whereupon the petitioners were discharged vide order dated 4.7.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that now complaint (Annexure P-5), in regard to the same incident/transaction, has been filed and the petitioners have been summoned. The proceedings are an abuse of process of Court and the process of law. 4 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has pointed out that when earlier the petitioners were discharged, respondent No.2/complainant was given liberty to file a private complaint. Respondent No.2 has exercised the liberty and filed the complaint, whereupon the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the process followed by the Magistrate. 5 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6 The incident/transaction is in relation to an agreement to sell. The case set up by respondent No.2 is that he did not affix his signatures on the agreement and the same is forged. 7 When the matter was taken up in the FIR proceedings by the Magistrate, report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban was sought in regard to standard and questioned signatures. The standard and questioned signatures were compared and the opinion given by the Government Agency is that the signatures having been appended by one and the same Criminal Misc. No.36294 -M of 2010 (O&M) 3 person cannot be ruled out. It is in view of such scientific evidence that the petitioners were discharged. 8 Without considering the contents of the report and its implication, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, has summoned the petitioners to stand trial vide impugned order (Annexure P-6). 9 When a person is asked to stand trial, serious consequences follow. Once, it was brought to the notice of the Magistrate that FIR proceedings had earlier been carried out and the petitioners had been discharged, it was imperative for the Magistrate to have considered the documents placed on record with the challan and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory in regard to the signatures. The same having not been done, in my considered opinion, the impugned order is rendered illegal and without consideration of relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 10 In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed. 11 Order dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed with liberty to the Magistrate to proceed afresh, however, after taking into account final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, furnished after investigation and the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. August 4, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?