AUTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises an interesting and important question of criminal procedure the uncommon factual backgrowid throws into sharp focus some legal cantours in this area, the visibility of which is likely to remain otherwise low. It seems necessary, therefore, to set out the facts leading to the present petition at some length, to serve as the back drop against which a discussion of the legal question will become more meaningful.

(2.) The petitioner (Autar Singh) has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 Criminal Procedure Code . to quash the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Shri Kuldip Singh) on 3-5-1977 as one can find from the order-sheet pertaining to this case, incorporating the orders passed by him from time to time this is handwritten by the learned Magistrate :

(3.) The present petitioner was cited in Police challan filed before the lower court as witness No. 32; it is important to notice that he was shown as an accused. To start with the same learned Magistrate, when he took cognizance of the case on 18-5-1976 summoned only the two persons, S.K.Das and Raj Khosia, who had been shown as the accused, for 20-7-76. S. K. Das, among them, has still not been served. What concerns us now is the impugned order passed nearly a year later, on 3-5-1977. On the same date Smt.. Veena Mehta filed a petition before the learned Magistrate through her counsel Shri R.D.Mehra requesting that the court "be pleased to take cognizance against the aforesaid Autar Singh.........under section 190 Criminal Procedure Code . and that he be summoned as an accused to face trial along with S. K. Das and Raj Khosia (the other two accused in the case) in accordance with law". It is in the light of this prayer one has to read the order as recorded in the order-sheet directing issue of summons "to Atoar Singh also" on the ground that the documents on file warranted his being summoned as an accused. According to the Police challan S. K. Das and Raj Khosia had been responsible for cheating Smt. Veena Mehta and her husband Vijay Mehta by making her agree to acquire a property not belonging to the vendor, who had been introduced to them by Autar Singh. It was mentioned by counsel for Smt. Veena Mehta before me that that the name of the said person, Who had given his name as Ram Narain, turned out to be Raj Khosia, and the other accused in the case S. K. Das, who was a property dealer. Raj Khosia appeared before the lower court in answer to the summons but S. K. Das has not been served so far.