IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-15386 of 2010 Date of decision:- 30.11.2011 Iqbal Rai Jain and others ...Petitioners Versus Asha Devi .... Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH **** Present:- Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate, for the respondent. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Complaint No.23/1 dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana summoning the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 500, 34 IPC. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order does not even mention as to on what evidence, the Court had relied upon to come to a conclusion that the offences for which they have been summoned are prima facie made out. What the Court has done is that it has merely reproduced the contents of the complaint and thereafter referred to the names of the persons who have been examined in the preliminary evidence and the documents attached thereto but none of the contents thereof have been considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order showing application of mind. He accordingly prays for setting aside of the said order. CRM No.M-15386 of 2010 -2- Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the Court while passing the order has specifically stated that the counsel for the complainant has been heard and the judicial file has been gone through along with the documents carefully and thereafter the Court had proceeded to summon the petitioners for offences punishable under Section 500,34 IPC which fulfills the requirement of law. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The impugned order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the trial Court does not show any application of mind by the Court while exercising its powers in summoning the accused. Merely because it has been mentioned that the judicial file has been gone through and the documents attached thereto would not be enough to summon a person as an accused when he has to face a criminal trial which would not only put him in a position where he has to stand trial as an accused but also he must be made aware of at least the evidence which had come against him. That is not only required to be followed as a principle of judicial propriety but also when the person is to face a trial and the rigmarole of criminal proceedings. The application of mind by the Court should be apparent from the orders which is the basic principle of judicial discipline. In the present case, the impugned order does not reflect the same. The order, thus, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. 30.11.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) poonam JUDGE