TEJ PAL AND OTHERS Vs. DHEERAJ AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tejpal and others, namely, Sandeep, Om Pal, Om Parkash and Deepak, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint bearing No. 84 of 2009 dated 15.11.2006 and 28.4.2009 (Annexure P2) for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 427, 452 read with section 149 IPC and the summoning order dated 5.7.2010 (Annexure P3) vide which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 427, 452 read with section 149 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the daughter of Tej Pal, petitioner No.1 was married with Sudhir Kumar, a relation of respondent No.1, on 29.4.2006. According to him, soon thereafter she was murdered at her matrimonial home regarding which FIR was registered on 16.9.2006. He has submitted that at the trial that followed in the said case, accused were convicted by the court. He has further submitted that regarding the incident covered by the complaint (Annexure P2), Dheeraj lodged a report with the police and the police after due enquiry found the said case to be false. According to him, thereafter this complaint has been filed and the Magistrate has ordered summoning of the petitioners. He has submitted that three of the petitioners, who are accused in the complaint case, are residents of Kurukshetra while two are residents of village Laprana District Muzzafar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. According to him, the Magistrate has failed to comply with the provisions of section 202 Cr.P.C. in making the summoning order (Annexure P3) and for that reason, the same is bad.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in this regard on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in Savera Sidhu Vs. Harleen Sidhu and another, 2011 2 RCR(Cri) 442where the provisions under section 202 Cr.P.C. were under consideration.