GUIZAR SINGH Vs. PRITAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case which may be stated for the disposal of the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are as follows: Gulzar Singh petitioner instituted a complaint against six respondents under sections 452,323, 147/149 of the Indian Penal Code on 17-10-1987 in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha. THE complainant examined his wife Smt. Sukhjit Kaur injured (PW 4), two eye witnesses, namely, Harminder Singh (PW 2) and Jarnail Singh (PW 3), two doctors, who had examined the injured or had attended her when she remained as indoor patient in Civil Hospital, Nabha, from 8-3-1987 to 26.3.1987, namely Dr. Bharat Bhushan (PW 5) and Dr. Narinder Kumar (PW 6), and Constable Bhagwant Singh who produced daily diary entry dated 8-3-1987 lodged of Gulzar Singh in connection with the present occurrence. On a consideration of the above preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate passed the summoning order dated 20-7-1988. THE summoned accused filed revision petition which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. By order dated 20-7-1989 the revision was allowed and after setting aside the summoning order, the complaint was dismissed. What prevailed with the Additional Sessions Judge was that there was inconsistency as to the persons named in the daily dairy report, on the one hand, and the complainant, on the other hand. THEre was also delay in lodging the F.I.R. It was also observed, that names of the eye-witnesses had not been mentioned in the daily report entry and the evidence was, therefore, considered to be intrinsically infirm. It is in these circumstances that the complainant has filed this revision for quashing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as an abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) IT is settled law that at the stage of summoning the Magistrate is not required to meticulously examine and evaluate the evidence. He is not required to record detailed reasons. A brief order which indicates the application of mind is all that is expected of him at that stage. He is required to record brief reasons in case after considering the statements on oath under section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he forms an opinion that there is no sufficient cause for proceeding. In the facts of the present case, it was totally premature for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have undertaken any evaluation of the evidence in exercise of the revisional powers the version given in the complaint was supported by the injured herself besides two eye-witnesses, husband of the injured and the medical evidence besides the fact that the husband did lodge a report with the police, Reference in this connection may be made to Shamsher Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, Vivap Kumar Aggarwal v. Ved Parkash & another, Nirmal Singh & Ors. v. Sin Ram. For these reasons, it not at all possible to sustain the order passed in revision and the same deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this court. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 20-7-1989 is. therefore, quashed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the Trial Court for further proceedings according to law on 18-3-1991. Petition allowed.