RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -petitioners have sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, dated October 3, 1984 whereby they were summoned to face trial under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT is alleged that on 14th July, 1984 the petitioners went to the respondent Hira Lal and told him that they came by bus from Saharanpur to attend a marriage to be solemnized at Amritsar and that on their way to Amritsar that attache case containing cash, ornaments and clothes had been stolen from the bus in which they were travelling. They requested the respondent for a loan of Rs. 1,000/ -, some clothes and ornaments. It is said that since the petitioners were known to the respondent, the latter relying on their version, gave them Rs. 1,000/ - besides some clothes and ornaments but later on it transpired that there was no marriage of anybody to be solemnized at Amritsar and the respondent had been defrauded by them. The trial magistrate scrutinized the preliminary evidence led by the respondent and found that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused petitioners and accordingly summoned them vide his order dated October 3, 1984. By the means of the present petition, the accused petitioners have sought the quashing of the summoning order as well as the proceedings taken thereunder.

(3.) IT is common ground between the parties that the Magistrate found a prima facie case against the accused petitioners and accordingly summoned them. If eventually the learned magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence is made out against them, it will be open to him to discharge or acquite the accused, as the case may be, but it is difficult to appreciate why the order issuing summons to the petitioners should be quashed. In the circumstances, the petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The parties through counsel are directed to appear before the trial Magistrate on 10.9.1985, who shall proceed in accordance with law. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited Shankar Lal and another v. Sunder Lal 1984(1) RCR(Crl.) 548 (P&H) : 1984(1) CLR 423 and Shiv Parshad and another v. State of Haryana and another, 1983(1) CLR 315. These authorities are distinguishable and the ratio therein is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Petition dismissed.