Manjinder Singh vs State

Manmohan, J.—Present petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 19th May, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West-02, Delhi whereby the petitioner''s revision petition seeking quashing of summoning order dated 22nd December, 2011 was rejected. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the summoning order dated 22nd December, 2011 passed by learned ACMM, West, Delhi. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been summoned by the trial court even though due to insufficient evidence, petitioner''s name had been kept in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet and he had not been chargesheeted.

Mr. Kaul further states that the trial court and ASJ failed to appreciate that according to FSL report the alleged signature of the petitioner on the Sale Deed dated 22nd March, 1996 did not match with the petitioner''s signature. He also points out that the investigating agency on the basis of the expert opinion had stated that the thumb impression on the Sale Deed was not that of the petitioner.

However, it is settled law that even if a person is not included as an accused in a charge-sheet, he can be summoned by the Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence, if some material is found against him. In fact, the Magistrate takes cognizance of offence and not of the offender. In M/s. SWIL Ltd. Vs. State of Delhi and Another, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

.........There is no bar u/s 190 CrPC that once the process is issued against some accused, on the next date, the Magistrate cannot issue process to some other person against whom there is some material on record, but his name is not included as accused in the charge-sheet.

Since there is a serious allegation against the petitioner that he had impersonated Mr. Balvinder Singh and signed the Sale Deed dated 22nd March, 1996 as attesting witness, the trial court has summoned him.

Moreover, the FSL report and the expert opinion are not conclusive of the petitioner''s innocence or guilt. This Court has no doubt that the report and opinion referred to by Mr. Kaul would be given due weightage and consideration by the trial court at the appropriate stage. Consequently, at this stage no interference is called for with the impugned orders. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.