Jagmail Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

   


     
 

 !

"# $!%&'&"() *+*+ ,-&.

/&(,0 ($ " 0!1'

+++! & &"(!1'

2!1'3'

/  !

"# 3(45 ($ (" 0!1

+++!'6"($!( '

) 78 /+ /
 / 
 

  

  / 9 

 

! "

# %

%

  &'





 %$

$ $ # *+,-.-& 




    

$  

/  

1

$ . & & 

   1"

 ))

 )) 



 2  '' 2. 

&3  1

 24 &-!

,
* 

)  

# 5)



$    && "





 

) "

) ) 6$   % )    

 

 % "

$ 

$ '

,

) "

 6 ) $ 1 

$  

  ) "

  $$  $ 

$ 

 



$ ))$  "

$

 

7$

$$



,

$    

)

1

))$

 "



 "



* 

&.

&



 

/ 

"

1  $ 

8 

 



$





 " 

 ) )

$  

$

$

1

))$

 

 ,      







$  $ 

   "

  

1

" 

$  

!#



9

)  1   1"

 %$

1

     

    

 )

  

      

   

!

""

!

1



1- :;

<

$    ) 1 

 ) %

   %

 "

 

     $

 1

$

 = :;

1

$  



"

 

"

  



   

    $

$

 = :';

1  6  $





 "

$       1

 1"

  )=

* :2;

1  ) ) $  

  



$ "



"

% .

 

1

  $ ))  1 6

1

 

9

) # 

     "$ % &   '( '

""

*'*

+, - . /0 1   1 

$

))$



8.

Similarly, in a recent judgment dated 22.02.2024 titled as 'Vikas Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2024 INSC 261', the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the position that the order of issuance of summons could be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

9.

In view of the above discussed proposition of law, it is explicit that a complaint can be quashed and an order of issuance of summons can be interfered with by this Court by invoking powers under Section 528 of BNSS, however at the same time, it is also to be kept in mind that the inherent jurisdiction under this provision is to be exercised sparingly and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the section itself. It is well settled proposition of law that an

 appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of this power and the inherent powers so vested do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction upon the High Court to act according to whims and caprices.

10.

On applying the above mentioned proposition of law to the facts of the present case, it is to be seen as to whether the complaint as lodged by the respondent/complainant and the impugned summoning order are liable to be quashed or not. The main thrust of the arguments address by learned counsel for the petitioner is that

* 

&.

&



 

/ 

"

1  $  >

 

 

"

 1 %

" && $ $ 1$ 

 $ 1 ) 1

 " & 

$   



 $ ? 

    "$ )   $

$

  



 (  %

 



) 



    $   $ 

 

 1 6$ 

1

!#

   6 



:  

per Section 227 of BNSS (which is pari materia with Section 204 of Cr.P.C.) if in opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, he shall issue summons for procuring the attendance in summons/warrants case. The sine qua non for exercising the power under this provision to issue process, is the subjective satisfaction regarding the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding. At that stage, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the material collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. For issuance of summons under Section 227 of BNSS, the expression used is "there is sufficient ground for proceeding" and detailed inquiry regarding merits/demerits is not required. Reference in this context can be made to + 

"

  %

 23 '(''

'

""

'

'(''

""

"  *(

1

9

)  

 1

$ 

"

1

$   $     $ 

$   $    "

$   

 

$  $

1     $      





; , 1  



  $ 



1

$ ))$

$" $  )

)

</ =

  *+*+

 



  !"  # % " 



  & % "