AMIT JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings pending before Sh. Kuldeep Narain, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House arising out of FIR No. 413/2000.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are:

(3.) Sh. Ashwin Vaish counsel for the petitioner contends that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Learned Trial Court has erred in law by summoning the Petitioner even though he was placed in col. No.2 especially at a stage where no evidence sufficient enough existed on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence in terms of the provisions of section 319 of the Code. The counsel further submits that the Trial Court has completely ignored the reply of the Police which clearly suggests that the name of the present Petitioner is being dragged only due to financial reasons and even if for the sake of arguments, it is to be taken that the Ld. Judge had some discretion in summoning the Petitioner, the same could not have been done in light of the material existing on record. The counsel maintains that the procedure followed by the Ld. Magistrate is not in compliance with Chapter XX of the Code which provides for trial of summons cases as after the charge-sheet was filed in the present case and the Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code in the year 2001 against Vinod Kumar and summoned him in terms of section 204 of the Code, for the next three years the complainant who was very much a party to the proceedings did not raise the said controversy and for the first time in Nov. 2003 claimed that the Petitioner has been wrongly placed in Col. No.2. The counsel also avers that complainant and her daughter who have been party to the proceedings from the very beginning, never raised a doubt/dispute as to the fact that the Petitioner has been wrongly placed in Col. No.2. The counsel submits that the learned trial court first summoned the petitioner and then by a procedure unknown to Law, pointed towards the petitioner and asked the daughter of respondent No.2 i.e. Ms. Veena if she could identify the driver of the offending vehicle and readily she named the petitioner. Further the counsel submits, that once the reply of the Police was amply clear, the learned Judge committed an illegality in asking the daughter of the complainant to identify the driver of the offending vehicle.