CRM No.M-15496 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-15496 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 05.12.2011 Jagdev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present :Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. G.S.Brar, Asst. Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for respondent No.2 *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of proceedings initiated on an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) read with Section 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C. titled as 'Gurbhim Singh Versus Jagdev Singh and another' as well as the summoning order dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that while considering an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court, in which the alleged offence is committed, should send the case to the Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction to try the case. He contends that since the Magistrate, to whom the application was moved, was himself acting as the Court where the offences have been allegedly committed, he could not proceed with the same and summon the petitioner, the CRM No.M-15496 of 2010 -2- present proceeding on application under Section 340 Cr.P.C and order of summoning deserve to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.D.Lakhani and another vs. Sate of Punjab and another, 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal), 838. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the procedure, which has been adopted by the trial Court is in accordance with law as the application moved by the complainant- respondent No.2 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C., the Court after holding an inquiry, has found prima facie that the petitioner has committed offence under Sections 193, 196, 197, 199 and 200 IPC and accordingly, summoned the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides for the procedure to be followed by the Court for the offences mentioned under Section 195 Cr.P.C. where all or any of the offences referred to in clause (b) of Sub-section (1) appear to have been committed by a person. The mandate is that the Court should, if it is of the opinion and it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect. Such an exercise has been done in the present case by the trial Court. However, before making a complaint thereof in writing and sending it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, the Court has summoned the petitioner and another to appear and require the CRM No.M-15496 of 2010 -3- accused to furnish sufficient security for their appearance before such Magistrate where the complaint is sent as provided under Section 340 Cr.P.C. There is no violation as such of the provisions as contained in the statute under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The stage of making a complaint in writing on the basis of findings recorded in the preliminary inquiry and sending the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction has not been resorted to by the Court as yet which shall follow after the summoned accused put in appearance before the Court. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present case, the same stands dismissed. 05.12.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE