IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. Criminal Misc. No.24787 -M of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 M/S KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD. & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS ARUN BERRI .... RESPONDENT(S) 2. Criminal Misc. No.17726 -M of 2011 (O&M) M/S KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD. & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S AJAY KNITWEARS & FABRICS (P) LTD. .... RESPONDENT(S) 3. Criminal Misc. No.24797 -M of 2011 (O&M) M/S KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD. & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS VARUN BERRI .... RESPONDENT(S) 4. Criminal Misc. No.14234 -M of 2011 (O&M) M/S KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD. & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S GULMARG BEAUTY .... RESPONDENT(S) 5. Criminal Misc. No.16591 -M of 2011 (O&M) M/S KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD. & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) Criminal Misc. No.24787 -M of 2011 (O&M) 2 VERSUS M/S AJAY KNITWEARS & FABRICS (P) LTD. .... RESPONDENT(S) 6. Criminal Misc. No.21595 -M of 2011 (O&M) MRS. RITU CHHABRA & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S KNIT-N-CRAFT .... RESPONDENT(S) 7. Criminal Misc. No.14262 -M of 2011 (O&M) M/S KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD. & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S OSWAL CLOTHING (P) LTD. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. APS Deol, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. VR Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. AR Takkar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Sarvshri A.C. Jain and Baldev Kapoor, Advocates, for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No.24787- M of 2011 (M/s Koutons Retail India Ltd. and others versus Arun Berri), Criminal Misc. No.17726-M of 2011 (M/s Koutons Retail India Ltd. and others versus M/s Ajay Knitwears and Fabrics (P) Ltd.), Criminal Misc. No.24797-M of 2011 (M/s Koutons Retail India Ltd. and others versus Varun Berri), Ciminal Misc. Criminal Misc. No.24787 -M of 2011 (O&M) 3 No.14234 -M of 2011 (M/s Koutons Retail India Ltd. and others versus M/s Gulmarg Beauty), Criminal Misc. No.16591-M of 2011 (M/s Koutons Retail India Ltd. and others versus M/s Ajay Knitwears and Fabrics (P) Ltd.), Criminal Misc. No.21595 -M of 2011 (Mrs. Ritu Chhabra and others versus M/s Knit-n-craft) and Criminal Misc. No.14262 -M of 2011 (M/s Koutons Retail India Ltd. and others versus M/s Oswal Clothing (P) Ltd.), as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2 For reference to record, Criminal Misc. No.24787-M of 2011 (M/s Koutons Retail India Ltd. and others versus Arun Berri) is being taken up. 3 Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem in saying that the issue raised in this bunch of petitions has already been addressed by this court in Criminal Misc. No.4630-M of 2011 (Mrs. Ritu Chhabra and others v. Varun Berri) decided on 9.8.2011. For the sake of expediency, the same order be passed, without raising any issue in regard to other facts and circumstances. 4 The operative part of decision rendered in Mrs. Ritu Chhabra's case (supra) reads as under:- “Even as per ratio of Full Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 930, it has been left to the Magistrate and he can rely the affidavit filed by the complainant and its witnesses and it is not necessary that an inquiry should be there but in the present case no such finding has been given. Simply by mentioning that sufficient grounds are there to proceed against Criminal Misc. No.24787 -M of 2011 (O&M) 4 the accused is not sufficient as reasons should have been recorded for not conducting any such inquiry. Keeping in view the facts as well as law position as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind as no finding whatsoever has been recorded whether it is necessary to dispense with the inquiry or not, or it is a case of summoning of the accused on the basis of evidence. The summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner. A finding should have been recorded in this regard for prima facie making out a case to summon the petitioner which is there. The Magistrate is to exercise his discretion judicially. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed and impugned summoning order dated 26.11.2010 is set aside. The case is sent back to learned Magistrate to examine fresh by recording finding/reasons.” 5 Accordingly, impugned summoning order dated 6.1.2011 is hereby set aside, and the petition is disposed of in the above terms. 6 Before parting with the order, it is directed that the trial court, on account of the delay already caused, shall conclude the proceedings expeditiously. 7 A photostat copy of the order be placed on each of the connected files. September 14, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?