Crl. Revision No.1196 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1196 of 2001 Date of Decision: December 08, 2010 Joginder Singh ….Petitioner Versus Mukhtiar Singh ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bawa, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J.(Oral) The present petition is directed against the order dated 29.09.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, setting aside the order dated 13.09.1999 passed by the trial court, vide which it summoned Mukhtiar Singh under Section 468 of the IPC. The limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner in this case is that the Court was not vested with the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the accused. However, it could only examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the order while exercising the powers under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. It was further urged that if no offence under Section 468 IPC was made out, it could direct the Judicial Magistrate to re-consider the evidence led by the complainant in order to find out if any other offence was made out or not. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent has urged that actually no offence is made out against the respondent as the matter is of civil nature. Having heard the rival contentions, it transpires that the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be well founded. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, is not vested with the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. but the Court was sheathed with powers to examine about the legality of the order under Section 397 of the Code. - 1- Crl. Revision No.1196 of 2001 In view of the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the Court though from the facts and evidence on the record concluded that no offence under Section 468 IPC is made out yet, it could direct the trial Court to examine from the facts and the evidence, if any other offence is made out or not. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition succeeds and is accepted. Impugned order dated 29.09.2000 is set aside. The case is remitted back to the trial Court to go into the facts as well as the evidence produced on record in order to find out, if prima facie, any other offence is made out against the accused. However, these observations may not be construed to mean if any other offence is actually made out. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 25.01.2011. 08.12.2010 (A.N. JINDAL) vcgarg JUDGE - 2-