Bhateri And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS





        
   
 
 

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


    ----- ( &%  ./&$ 0 23!.4%

 %$,%% &  & $15&$,3!..6!+    ( 0 +!.4%

 &,%    

78 
8 (     %$& ,,3% 3  *%   ( &  ,3:  %$,  ;

:1%%

 
,&& 3  .%3*&&&2 :!(,%&.<

(9!=$  1 &  $& > %% %$$ :&343:&%$1  ?$ 1%.<

(9&%/  &

;%%33;

&% <,%&  &%&&,&  
 
(%% &!13 !#$% !*%&$0

*

&$6: $4 3, &% 13 4&:&%%$  %

9 
,&&

-2-

 3  .%3 *&&& 2 :! (,%! =$     ,,3%

 *% 7
"  ( 14  %$ 1,3%! %$  $4  & 11% % 3%$&  :@ 7 %
8 

*%&7 78@( :&% %(3*%%3?=!(,%  A   &3   %$ ,%% & $& :

 %$% <,% ,%% 
#$% !%$ ,%% $& 1%$@ B4 $ &%%1%% 7 

*%
  (!%$1,3% $&%1%$,%% && &! %$ !&$$&&%%%$%&$$ :=%$ %$ ==33 +=4 !&$1%$ &%%1% *%
  (  7 
%$  1:%$,%% &  A   &3  &,%   $& &%% %$% % :::$1&$& &3!%$ &,% &%%%=%$$1  A  *%%  &3 &%%& %$% %$ ,3 $& 3    %4&%:% %$ !33% , %.<

( $&

 3   4 ! %$ 1,3% $&

&$ 

4% %

9 

&%%:%$ %$%&$&1 % &%%,

& %$&  @$4$ 3  &3  %$, %&  @%& %%$%%$,3$&, , 33%

, %.<

( %$&%$1,3%$&3&

&$

4% % 9 

! =$  &$ $& &%% %$% &$ &  1  % &%%,

& %$&  4 !1 & $&3    > %% %$% 3

%4;

:1%%

 
.<

(9  ?$ &!%$&

% &%$%%$ &1% 3  %$ && =$$

-3- %$ ,%% &  3 $4  & 11 %  % 3  *% 7
"  (   @ Pepsi Foods Limited and another Versus Special Judicial Magistrate and others-(1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The relevant observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment read as under:

"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused.

Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

-4Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be of more than a prima-facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence, if not rebutted, may lead to conviction of the person sought to be added as accused.

Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioners have been summoned by the trial Court without there being any material against them. Moreover, the complainant herself furnished an affidavit dated 28.01.2015 wherein she has submitted that she is no more interested to pursue the case. Thus when the complainant herself is not inclined to pursue her case, the chances of conviction of the accused in the case, are quite bleak. Thus no useful purpose would be served to summon the accused. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat is set aside.

        
  



  !"#$       5: %% C$%$ &,/:D &  5& C$%$ , % 3