Sharad Kapoor vs Sharan Pal Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.

CRM No.46349 of 2011

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, and adopting liberal approach, delay of 96 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

CRM No.46350 of 2011

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case

Petitioner filed criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) at Amritsar, against respondent (resident of Gurgaon) and two others (residents of New Delhi) under Sections 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 11.08.2009 Annexure P-2 ordered summoning of all the three accused for the aforesaid offences. Accused No.1 respondent challenged the said summoning order by filing revision petition before Sessions Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Amritsar vide impugned judgment dated 01.03.2011 Annexure P-3 has partly allowed the revision petition and after setting aside the summoning order, the case has been sent back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, to pass order in accordance with law and after complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ''Cr. P. C''). Feeling aggrieved, complainant has filed the instant revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that summoning order Annexure P-2 was passed by the trial Magistrate after complying with provisions of Section 202 Cr. P.C. i.e. after holding enquiry. The contention cannot be accepted. Accused named in the complaint are residing at places beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate. Consequently, in view of mandatory provision of Section 202 Cr. P.C., it was mandatory for the trial Magistrate to either enquire into the case himself or to direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as the Magistrate deems fit, to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused where he resides outside his area of jurisdiction. The said enquiry is to be made after the complainant and his witnesses have been examined on oath u/s 200 Cr. P. C. In the instant case, however, the Magistrate passed the summoning order Annexure P-2 just after recording statements of complainant and his witnesses in preliminary evidence, but without holding any further enquiry as per aforesaid mandatory provision of Section 202 Cr. P.C.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Instant revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.