Raj Kumar @ Raju and others vs State of Punjab and another

Hon''ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh 1. The petitioners are aggrieved against their summoning primarily on the ground that before summoning them, the Court at Phagwara did not follow the procedure as required u/s 202 Cr.P.C. As per the amended Section 202 Cr.P.C., if a person, to be summoned, resides outside the jurisdiction of any particular court, then Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint, has to postpone the issue of process against the accused, and is to either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer. This legal position has been so held by this Court in S.K. Bhowmik Vs. S.K. Arora, 2007(4) RCR (Cri) 650. The nature of enquiry, required to be, held has been clarified in S.K. Bhowmik''s case (supra).

I find from the record that before summoning the petitioners, the Magistrate had examined three witnesses, namely, Lal Chand (father of the complainant) as CW-1, Hans Raj as CW-2 and the complainant himself as CW-3. After appreciating the preliminary evidence, court found that case was made out for summoning accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 406/498-A IPC. The application of mind would further be seen when the court did not consider it appropriate to summon accused Nos. 4 to 6 on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to summon them. Apparently, this could have been done only after holding an enquiry as envisaged u/s 202 Cr.P.C.

The submission that this evidence was recorded before the case was remanded would be immaterial. What is required to be seen is if the procedure as laid down u/s 202 Cr.P.C. was or has been followed or not. It appears that the enquiry as envisaged u/s 202 Cr.P.C. was held and hence I do not find any infirmity in the order summoning the petitioners. No case for interference, thus, is made out.

Dismissed.