IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-22792 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: July 29, 2011 Anil Jain and others …..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioners .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-10) issued by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was no application of mind by the court below before deciding to summon the accused to face trial. According to him, the summoning is based on no evidence at all and thus, deserves to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the complaint herself stepped into witness box as CW2 and also examined a document expert as CW1. The document expert gave the opinion that disputed signatures on the warning notice did not tally with the specimen signatures of the complainant and thus, same was a forged document. Exhibits CW1/C, CW1/D to CW1/ F and negatives thereof (CW1/G to Crl.Misc.No.M-22792 of 2011 - 2 - CW1/N) were tendered into evidence. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was established and decided to summon the accused. The summoning order was passed way back in November-2009. The petitioners have now posed a challenged to said order. At this stage, case is stated to be fixed for pre-charge evidence. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the apex court reported as Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 Supreme Court cases 749. I am of the considered view that learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned order nor any reason for challenging the same after a lapse of more than 1 year and 8 months. In the facts and circumstances of the case judgment reported as Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the case. The petition is thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed in limine. July 29, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2