KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Code') prays for quashing of complaint No. 162 dated 1.10.1994 pending adjudication in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa. A prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 7.11.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate summoning the petitioner under Sections 420/506 IPC and discharging the other accused namely Dr. Shamsher Singh Sodhi.

(2.) The facts in brief as disclosed in the instant petition are that the complainant-respondent filed a complaint against the accused-petitioner and another alleging that the complainant-respondent got engaged his daughter with the son of the petitioner. The accused-petitioner is alleged to have promised that son of the complainant-respondent should be sent abroad showing him green pasture. He took him to one Dr. Shamsher Singh Sodhi, who had also agreed to send the son of the accused-petitioner to Muscat. The accused- petitioner is alleged to have told the complainant-respondent that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has to be spent if a person wants to go abroad. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- is alleged to have been paid in March 1993 alongwith the passport by the complainant-respondent. The accused-petitioner is alleged to have come to the house of the son of the complainant-respondent Surjit Singh when the afore-mentioned amount of Rs. 5,000/- was handed over. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was also paid by the complainant-respondent to the accused- petitioner on 3.4.1993. It is alleged that neither the money had been paid back despite various visits and requests nor his son had been abroad. In fact the amount of Rs. 15,000/- each has been deposited by the acucsed-petitioner in the name of his son and in the name of the son of the complainant- respondent. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- is alleged to have been paid back by Dr. Shamsher Singh Sodhi. It is further alleged that despite the requests made by the complainant-respondent to the police, no case was registered resulting into filing of the instant complaint.

(3.) The petitioner si alleged to have received summons with a copy of the complaint on 25.11.1995 and he was later admitted to bail. On 13.10.1997, evidence of the complainant-respondent was closed by the order of the Court. On 14.9.1998 the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa charged the petitioner alongwith another co-accused under Sections 420/506/34 IPC. On 7.9.1999, respondent No. 1 State of Haryana examined three PWs and the prosecution evidence was closed. The case was adjourned for recording statement under Section 313 of the Code. On 4.10.1999, the statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code. On 16.9.2000, the Magistrate passed an order stating that the summoning order was issued without recording preliminary evidence. It was further observed that the case was sent to the police seeking their report under Section 202 of the Code in the absence of any preliminary evidence. The Magistrate directed that preliminary evidence of the complainant be recorded and the accused if required would be summoned again. The bail bonds and the surety bonds existing on the case file were ordered to be discharged. On 19.9.2000, the Magistrate passed an order directing the accused-petitioner as well as another to be present through their counsel and he also examined three PWs. On 3.10.2000, Dr. Shamsher Singh Sodhi was discharged alongwith the proforma- respondent. However, the petitioner was summoned under Sections 420/526 IPC. On 7.11.2000, the Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the acucsed- petitioner for amending the summoning order. Against the afore-mentioned orders dated 16.9.2000, and 3.10.2000 and 7.11.2000, the acused-petitioner filed a revision petition and the same was dismissed on 2.7.2003. The operative part of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, reads as under :-