Criminal Misc. No.M-23463 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-23463 of 2008 Date of decision : 4.12.2008 Badri Ram @ Badri Parshad and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S.Mor, SeniorDeputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the complainant. S. D. ANAND, J. The operative part of the order under challenge reads as under:- “I have perused the evidence led by the complainant and the document relied upon by him, and from perusal, this Court is quite satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under Sections 498-A/406/323/506 read with section 34 of Indian Pernal Code. Accordingly, the accused are ordered to be summoned for facing trial before the Court in compliance of Section 204 of Cr.P.C.” In course of para l of the impugned order, the learned Trial Magistrate only noticed the filing of the complaint by the complainant and the offence under which it had been filed. Para 2 thereof records that arguments had been heard. In paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order, the learned Criminal Misc. No.M-23463 of 2008 -2- *** Magistrate noticed three judicial pronouncements (“U.P.Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s Mohan Meakings Ltd. And others 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 421, Kanti Bhandra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 407 and Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. Roshan Lal Aggarwal 2003 (2) RCR (Crl) III) in support of the observation that “at this stage of issues, the process against the accused, Magistrate is not required to record reasons.” Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the validity of the impugned order as being sketchy and non transparent. The averment, in the context, is that the impugned order does not even notice what ever appeared in the preliminary evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant argues the contrary by averring that the judicial pronouncements noticed in the impugned order are fully supportive of the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Magistrate in refraining from recording a detailed order at the stage of summoning of accused, The citation of the first case is incorrect inasmuch as no such case is reported at that page. Insofar as the ruling in Kanti Bhandra Shah's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court made those observations for the purposes of framing of charge. It was in that context that the Apex Court noticed that, at the time of framing of charge sheet, the Court is required to record reasons if it decides to discharge the accused. It was further observed that if accused is to be charge sheeted, the Court may do so without recording the reasons why the charge was being framed. The third judicial pronouncement in Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports case (supra) is also not applicant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the Apex court was Criminal Misc. No.M-23463 of 2008 -3- *** dealing with the summoning of an accused in a complaint filed by a public servant. It is not so in the case before this Court. By the very nature of things, the summoning of an accused jeopardises his liberty. An order of indicated category must announce to the accused the reasons on the basis whereof his summoning has been ordered. An order in that context must indicate application of mind by the learned Magistrate. It would be evident from a perusal of the impugned order that it suffers from the vice of being cryptic and non speaking character. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order shall stand set aside. Learned Magistrate shall, however, be at liberty to pass an order afresh on the basis of material obtaining on the file. December 04, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE