JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner and Respondents 1 and 2 are brothers. Respondents 1 and 2 filed complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code ("the IPC") in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala ("the Addl. C.J.M.") being Complaint No. 55 dated 14/6/2008 against the Petitioner and Respondent 3. In the complaint, the complainants alleged that an agreement of exchange of land was entered into between the complainants and the Petitioner wherein land measuring 12 kanals, 3 marlas i.e. 243/852 share out of land measuring 42 kanals 12 marlas belonging to the complainants was transferred to the Petitioner and in lieu of this, land belonging to the Petitioner measuring 12 kanals 3 marlas i.e. 243/730 share out of total land measuring 36 kanals 10 marlas was transferred to the complainants. On execution of the said agreement, the possession of the land was also exchanged on 22/3/2005. Accordingly and as per the exchange agreement, Respondent 3 recorded the exchange mutation in the revenue record vide Rapat No. 616 dated 30/4/2005 and Exchange Mutation No. 14599 was sanctioned by the Tehsildar, Patiala. According to the complainants, Respondent 3 and the Petitioner hatched a conspiracy and tampered with the revenue record of village Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala in respect of the aforesaid land. According to the complainants, Respondent 3 and the Petitioner wrote the exchanged area as 14 kanals 3 marlas instead of 12 kanals 3 marlas causing wrongful gain to the Petitioner and wrongful loss to them. According to the complainants, on the basis of the illegal and fraudulent entries made by Respondent 3 in the revenue record, the Petitioner is trying to grab 2 kanals of land from the complainant. The Petitioner and Respondent 3 have, therefore, played a fraud upon the complainants and cheated them. According to the complainants, though they approached the police, the police did not take any action. The complainants, therefore, filed the present complaint before the Addl. C.J.M. as aforesaid.

2. By order dated 19/1/2009, the Addl. C.J.M., dismissed the complaint observing that the complainants should approach the revenue authorities for correction of revenue record. The complainants carried, a revision to the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. By order dated 6/7/2010, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala set aside order dated 19/1/2009 and remanded the complaint to the Addl. C.J.M. with a direction to hold further inquiry in the complaint filed by the complainants. The Addl. C.J.M. by order dated 24/2/2011, holding that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against both the Petitioner and Respondent 3, issued summoning order. Being aggrieved by the remand order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and the summoning order passed by the Addl. C.J.M., the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code") for quashing of Complaint No. 55 dated 14/6/2008; remand order dated 6/7/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the summoning order dated 24/2/2011 passed by the Addl. C.J.M. By the impugned order, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the said petition. Hence, this special leave petition.

3. Before the High Court, only two submissions were advanced. It was argued that since the matter was remitted to the Addl. C.J.M., it was incumbent upon the Addl. C.J.M. to record fresh evidence before passing summoning order. This contention was rejected by the High Court observing that the zimni orders stated that fresh preliminary evidence was led by the complainants and the summoning order was not passed on the basis of the material which was already on record. The High Court also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Subrata Das v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. AIR 2011 SC 177 where this Court has held that direction to hold further enquiry does not necessarily oblige the Addl. C.J.M. to record further evidence. The relevant