PRITPAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner V.S. Tiwari has been summoned by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, under sections 323 and 325 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, pursuant to a complaint dated November 5, 1985 (Annexure P. 1) filed by the first respondent Rattan Lal. In this petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the order of summoning is sought to be quashed by the petitioner. The petition is resisted by the first respondent.
(2.) THE ground on which the impugned order of issuing process by the learned Judicial Magistrate has been assailed is that from the contents of the complaint (Annexure P1) no case of the commission of an offence by the petitioner has been made out and there is no iota of evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime. However, on a perusal of the complaint (Annexure P1), I find that no error has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in passing the order of summoning the petitioner (Annexure P.2). It is alleged by Rattan Lal respondent in the complaint that on 27.10.1985 when he and his wife Shakuntala Devi were returning from the Railway Station, the petitioner, who was driving a car, hit him intentionally with the side of the car felling him to the ground. Thereafter the petitioner's co-accused Raj Kumar Sharma, respondent No. 2, who had come there on a scooter, brought out a hockey stick from the petitioner's car and caused injuries to the first respondent with the same. The impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Annexure P.2) shows that these allegations were supported by the complaint as well as the eye witnesses Sohan Singh and Shakuntala Devi in the preliminary evidence. The medical evidence provided by Dr. I.S. Sandhu indicated that the injuries suffered by the complainant fell under sections 323 and 325, Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant in the preliminary evidence the learned Judicial Magistrate opened that a prima facie case under sections 323 and 325 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, is made out against both the accused and consequently issued process against them. There is, evidently, no merit in the petitioner's contention that the contents of the complaint (Annexure P.1) and the preliminary evidence produced by the complainant do not disclose the commission of any offence qua him. It is then contended that the complaint is false. However, the falsity or otherwise of the complaint cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. As held by the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) Recent C.R. 539, it is well settled that for the purpose of exercising its powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a first information report of a complaint the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per so. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.
(3.) FOR aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.;