IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. Nos. 5145-46 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-32926 of 2008 Date of decision: January 30, 2009 Chander Hass Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus Shiv Kumar ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. Crl. Misc. Nos. 5145-46 of 2009 The copy of the order dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure P6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and copy of the application dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure P7) submitted to the Incharge, Police Post Tis Hazari, Delhi attached with the Crl. Misc. applications are taken on record subject to just exceptions. Crl. Misc. applications stand disposed of. Crl. Misc. No. M-32926 of 2008 This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint (Annexure P1) titled Shiv Kumar v. Chander Hass Sharma filed by the respondent Shiv Kumar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and all consequential proceedings arising out of the complaint including the order dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure P3) in pursuance of which the application of the petitioner for dropping/closing the proceedings against him has been dismissed, as not maintainable and also for quashing the order dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure P4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dismissing the Crl. Misc. Nos. 5145-46 of 2009 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-32926 of 2008 revision petition against the order dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the trial Magistrate. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the copy of the complaint and the list of witnesses were not served on the petitioner with the summons that were issued to him for appearance before the learned trial Magistrate. It is submitted that the petitioner on being summoned put in appearance on the first date of hearing i.e. on 10.1.2006 and he was admitted to bail which is evident from the order dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure P6). However, even when the petitioner put in appearance, he was not supplied with a copy of the complaint and list of witnesses. The non-supply of the copy of complaint along with summons and the list of witnesses, it is stated, vitiates the impugned complaint and the consequential proceedings. The application filed by the petitioner for dropping and closing proceedings has wrongly been dismissed as not maintainable and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, it is submitted, has erred in dismissing the revision against the said order. It is also submitted that the cheque on the basis of which the complaint has been filed in fact had been misplaced regarding which an application dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure P7) was made to the Incharge, Police Post Tis Hazari, Delhi and it was received by the said Police Post which is evident from the seal and date on the said application. Therefore, the respondent has misused the process of the Court in getting the impugned summons issued. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the record. As regards the fact that the copy of the petition and list of witnesses was not supplied to the petitioner, it may be noticed that no prejudice is shown to have been caused. Though, it is the requirement of law that the copy of the complaint and the list of witnesses is served upon the accused along with summons, however, in the absence of prejudice, mere non-service of the copy of complaint and list of witnesses with the summons Crl. Misc. Nos. 5145-46 of 2009 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-32926 of 2008 would not be such a circumstance so as to quash the entire proceedings. On an application being made in this regard to the learned trial Magistrate, the learned Magistrate would ensure that the necessary copy of the complaint and list of witnesses are supplied to an accused who has been summoned. As regards the cheque being misplaced and an application dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure P7) having been submitted which has been received by the Police, it may be noticed that the same is a matter of inquiry which would require to be proved by leading of evidence. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to embark upon an inquiry and to ascertain whether such an application was indeed made and if so its effect on the proceedings. This is the domain of the learned trial Magistrate and the contention as regards the same may, if so advised, be raised before the said Magistrate. The fact that the trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad have held the application for dropping the proceedings to be not maintainable is also inconsequential. The Supreme Court in Sethu Raman v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (4) RCR (Crl.) 349 has held that a Court is not competent to discharge the accused after he has been summoned and a Court summoning an accused is not to review its own order and that a revision against such an order would also not be maintainable. In K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (2) Apex Court Journal 2004, it was held that in a revision against an interim order, the feasible test is whether an interim order that has been passed by upholding the objection raised by a party would result in culminating the proceedings. The feasible test whether prima facie case is made out or not has been duly considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 30, 2009 (S.S. SARON) amit JUDGE