PARMESHWARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner herein is the mother of the second petitioner and the mother-in-law of the second respondent. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the mother and son seek quashing of the second respondent's Complaint No.2 of 08.01.2009 filed against them and some others under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. They also challenge the order dated 19.03.2012 passed thereon by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam, summoning all the accused to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC.

(2.) By order dated 05.07.2013, this Court noted the contention of the petitioners that a compromise had been effected between the parties but despite the same, the second respondent had pursued the subject complaint and got the summoning order issued to the petitioners, thereby misusing the process of law. This Court also took note of their contention that an earlier FIR relating to the same events had been mentioned in the complaint but the same was not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate, while passing the summoning order. This Court accordingly directed the trial Court to adjourn the case. This interim order is operative as on date. The second respondent filed an application to vacate the said order.

(3.) However, as comprehensive arguments were advanced by Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned senior counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the first respondent-State; and Mr. Puneet Sharma, learned counsel for the second respondent, the main case itself is amenable to final disposal at this stage. At the outset, it may be noted that the issue of maintainability of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C stands settled in favour of the petitioners as the inherent powers of this Court cannot be curtailed by the availability of an alternative remedy in the form of a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C, in so far as the challenge to the summoning order is concerned [See Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and others V/s. State of Maharashtra and another , 2009 2 SCC 370, Prabhu Chawla V/s. State of Rajasthan and another , 2016 16 SCC 30 and Vijay and another V/s. State of Maharashtra , 2017 13 SCC 317].