Important Point
Summoning order is not to be passed in a mechanical manner.

Judgment

Arun Kumar Goel, J.— All the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14-7-1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, whereby they have been ordered to be summoned, as accused.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assis-tance record of the trial Court has been examined.

2. In this behalf, it may be worthwhile to notice that two First Information Reports were lodged with Police Station, Sadar, Chamba. One was F.I.R. No. 278/94. This F.I.R. was registered at the instance of respon-dent No. 2 under Sections 356/506/34 I.P.C. The other F.I.R. No. 277/94 was registered under Sections 336/506/34 I.P.C. Since both the F.I.Rs. pertained to the incident alleged to have taken place at the same time and same place, in all fairness, as well as, with a view to avoid conflicting deci-sions, should have been investigated by the same officer and thereafter should have further been sent for trial simultaneously.

3. Fact remains that the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 277/94, was sent for trial before the Court below. After recording evidence and after considering respective submissions in this case, the accused, namely Jasbeer Singh, Rohit Parkash Chaudhary, Dharam Chand, Dr. Pradeep Saini and Ramesh Chand, all were acquitted.

4. State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2000, whereas after completion of investigations in the case, arising out of FIR No. 278/94, it was observed by the police that the complaint is false. So, on one hand cancellation report was submitted, and on the other proceedings under Section 182 I.P.C. were ordered to be initiated against the complainant (Jasbeer Singh in this case). On receipt of this report from the police, trial Court ordered issuance of notice to the said complainant. He preferred a protest petition before the trial Court. Matter came for consideration before the Court below.

5. Instead of ordering further investigation or accepting the cancella-tion report etc., trial Court recorded the statements of four witnesses and has thereafter passed the impugned order summoning the petitioners. In this case arguments were heard and judgment was reserved on 10-5-2002. While going through the records, it was felt that Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2000 also needs to be heard. As such it was ordered accordingly on 25-5-2000. In these circumstances, this matter alongwith Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 2000, was heard on 31-5-2002. There-by both these cases are being disposed of simultaneously, but by separate judgments.

6. Shri Chandel, learned Coun-sel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that accepting everything

to be correct (for the sake of argument and without conceding), with special emphasis on the statements of PWs 1 to 4, no offence is made out on the basis whereof his clients-petitioners could be ordered to be summoned. While advancing his this line of argu-ment he pointed out that at this stage, scope of examination, as well as, interference is very limited. According to him, despite all these limitations summoning order have been passed in a mechanical and perfunctory manner. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, can look into the material available on the file and then deal with the case. Ano-ther submission, in this behalf, was that while considering the case, the learned Court below ought to have taken into account the evidence recorded by the police as well as, its recommendations.

7. So far the parameters of interference by this court at the summoning stage is concerned, the matter is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Reference to some of the decisions would be made in this behalf.

In Rajendra Nath Mahato v. T. Gangooly, Deputy Superintendent of Police Purulia and others1, it was held as under:—

“10. In the present case there was no order of transfer of the case by Shri Ganguly to Shri Sarkar. The issue of process is a matter for judicial determination. Before issuing a process the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. That is