GURLAL SINGH GREWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The extent of powers and scope of authority under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of a Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence but before issuing process to the accused directing the police to investigate and submit a report, is required to be determined in the present case.

(2.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, which reads as follows : "Consideration is heard today. This Court is of the opinion that before arriving on any conclusion, that whether the accused are to be summoned or not to be summoned, in the present case, the inquiry is required to be conducted, as such, the present complaint in original is forwarded to SHO, P.S. Divn. No. 5 Ludhiana, for conducting inquiry in the present complaint, on the facts complainant alleges. The Ahlmad will retain the photostat copy of the file and will keep the original statement with him and send the photostat to the police of P.S. Divn. No. 5, Ludhiana. SHO shall summon the complainant and his witnesses and record their statements and then conduct an inquiry and give his report on or before 19.2.2008."

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate had contended that the Magistrate after having taken cognizance of the offence by recording the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses, CW1 to CW4, ought to have, on the basis of the appreciation of the preliminary evidence, issued summons to the respondents as the petitioner had been able to prima facie establish the offences alleged against respondents 2 to 4. The impugned order, referring the matter to the concerned SHO for conducting an inquiry tantamounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, which would result in manifest injustice to the petitioner as the inquiry, which was initiated by the police was contrary to all cannons of criminal justice as the accused party, which does not have any locus standi stood summoned prejudicing the rights of the complainant. The order of the trial Court is without jurisdiction and is thus liable to be set aside.