1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 12077-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.11.2009 *** Dinesh Chander .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent with Crl. Misc. No. 12078-M of 2008 *** Dinesh Chander .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent with Crl. Misc. No. 12079-M of 2008 *** Dinesh Chander .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent and Crl. Misc. No. 12080-M of 2008 *** Dinesh Chander .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. *** 2 ARVIND KUMAR, J. The above-referred petitions are being disposed of by this common order passed in Crl. Misc. No. 12077-M of 2008 since the issue involved therein is common. The petitioner Dinesh Chander, who is common in all the petitions is seeking quashing of FIRs No. 67, 68, 69 and 70 dated 13.5.2005 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC and 7-10-55 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Cheeka, to his extent as also setting aside of order dated 6.12.2005 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guhla in the aforesaid FIR by virtue of which the petitioner and one another has been summoned to face trial. The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIRs were got registered by Inspector, Food and Supplies, Cheeka against Om Parkash and Desraj with the allegations that the above-said persons, being the depot holders, committed bungling in the distribution of wheat meant for BPL Card Holders by selling the same in open market. The investigating agency submitted the challan arraying Om Parkash and Desraj as accused therein and the learned trial Court, on appraisal of material collected during investigation framed charges against them under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B IPC and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The learned trial Court also formed an opinion that there is connivance of the present petitioner being the Store Keeper and one D.K. Singla, Area Manager Confed, in the said offence and hence vide impugned order dated 6.12.2005 proposed to summon both of them to face trial. Dis- satisfied with the same the instant petitions have been preferred by the petitioner, who has been summoned by the learned trial Court in the capacity of Store Keeper with the Confed. It is apt to mention here that one D.K. Singla, who was summoned by dint of the impugned order, being the Area Manager of Confed, also approached this Court vide Crl. Misc. Nos. 20420-M of 2007, 20556-M, 20558-M and 20560-M of 2008 and challenged order dated 6.12.2005. This Court vide order dated February 13,2008 allowed the petitions and set aside the said order dated 6.12.2005. The operative part of the order passed by this Court while 3 allowing the petitions preferred by D.K. Singla, Area Manager, reads as under:- “A careful perusal of the order passed by the trial Court indicates that it opted to take cognizance against the officials of the Confed Department on the basis of their vicarious liability as per the letter dated 13.3.2004 issued by the District Food and Supply Controller, Kaithal. It is pertinent to observe here that the petitioner had neither been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Agency nor any material had been gathered against him during the course of investigation. The trial court, on the basis of the presumptions, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner, in the capacity as the Area Manager of the Confed Department, was also liable for the collusion with the accused charge-sheeted. The mode adopted by the trial court in the absence of any substantial material collected during investigation seems to be illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The concept of vicarious liability seems to be unknown to the criminal jurisprudence unless and until there was any specific attribution against the person. It was not proper for the trial court to summon the petitioner before any evidence was produced before it. No doubt by exercising jurisdiction u/s 319 Cr.P.C. the trial court could summon the petitioner by judicious application of mind on the material produced before it but the approach of the trial court to summon the petitioner without there being any evidence against him does not appear to be correct and the order passed by the trial court dated 6.1.2005 (?) (Annexure P-2) opting to summon the petitioner as an accused, by taking cognizance against him, deserves to be quashed as the same seems to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the 4 impugned order dated 6.12.2005 (Annexure P-2) is hereby quashed.” Admittedly, the present petitioner has been summoned by the learned trial Court without there being any evidence/ material on record, since he had neither been charge-sheeted by the investigating agency nor any material had been gathered against him during the course of investigation. Learned State counsel has failed to show that the petitioner is not similarly situated to D.K. Singla, in whose respect the impugned order has already been set aside by this Court. Therefore, on the ground of parity the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief, as has been extended to D.K. Singla. In view of the discussion above, the instant petitions are allowed to the extent that orders dated 6.12.2005 passed by the learned trial Court in respect of the petitioner, are set aside. A copy of this order be placed in the connected petitions. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 9,2009 Jiten