CHAND AHUJA Vs. GAUTAM K HADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A criminal complaint under Ss.385, 392 and 506, Penal Code, was filed by the respondent Gautam K.Hada against the petitioners Chand Ahuja and A.S.I. Sukhminder Singh and one other, namely Lalit Ahuja (Annex. P.3). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, recorded preliminary evidence in support of the complaint produced by the complainant and thereafter, on considering the contents of the complaint as well as the preliminary evidence, passed an order dated Aprl. 28, 1986 summoning the petitioners and their co-accused Lalit Ahuja under Ss.385 and 506, Penal Code (Annex. P.4). The petitioners have sought the quashing of the said complaint and the summoning order in this petition under S.482, Criminal P.C.

(2.) At the very threshold the learned petitioners' counsel has contended that the learned trial Magistrate had passed the order of summoning (Annex. P.4) without applying his mind. I find no merit in this contention. The impugned order shows that the trial Magistrate has summoned the petitioners after due consideration of the allegations contained in the complaint and the preliminary evidence produced in support thereof. The Court is no doubt, bound to consider the contents of the complaint and the preliminary evidence, but it is not essential requirement of S.204, Criminal P.C. to give detailed reasons for issuing process to the accused. The only essential ingredient is that the order must exhibit that the Magistrate had applied his mind before passing the order. I find support in this view from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Krishan Murari v. Mohinder Pal, (1983) 1 Recent Cri R 21. In the present case the order clearly indicates that the learned trial Court, before summoning the petitioners, had applied his mind to the contents of the complaint and the preliminary evidence.

(3.) The next contention of the learned petitioners' counsel is that the trial Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaint against A.S.I. Sukhminder Singh without the prior sanction of the competent authority under S.197, Criminal P.C. This contention too is devoid of merit. S.197(1), Criminal P.C. envisages that no Court can take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty without previous sanction of the Government. In the present case, therefore, these provisions could be attracted only if the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner A.S.I. Sukhminder Singh was done in the course of the discharge of his official duties as public servant.