SURINDER SINGH,J - (1.) THE present is a glaring example of abuse of the process of Court, which has to be put to a halt. Bhajan Kaur, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner, Assistant Sub-Inspector Balwant Singh and three others, under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and other allied sections read with section 120 B and 34, Indian Penal Code. The offence was triable by the Special Court, Ludhiana, which took cognizance of the complaint and recorded the statements of various witnesses produced by the complainant. After recording this evidence the Special Court passed an order on May 16, 1985, dismissing the complaint in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The observations in the judgment which pertain to the petitioner, as reproduced in the present petitioner, extracted from Para 11 of the judgment of the Special Court dated May 16, 1985 (Copy Annexure P/2) are these. "So far as the accused Balwant Singh, ASI accused No. 4 is concerned there is no prima facie proof that he was aiding his co-accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the commission of the present offences. There is also no satisfactory evidence that he confined wrongfully Trilochan Singh in the Police Station or that he also gave injuries to Trilochan Singh. He has no motive to join hands with his co-accused for the vacation of the house. The motive, which has been alleged by the complainant is, against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Deceased had filed a civil suit against Gurdip Singh restraining him from getting the possession of the house except in due course of law. Resultantly, I dismiss the complaint against accused No. 4"
(2.) IT transpires that after the amendment in the legislation in regard to the forum of trial of criminal cases, the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 was transferred to the ordinary Courts and the same was taken up by the Additional Sessions Judge who, it appears, without making a reference to the earlier order as per which the petitioner had been discharged, summoned the petitioner to face a trial along with other co-accused. A copy of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated November 28, 1985 is Annexure P/3 to this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that in the wake of the discharge order in favour of the petitioner passed earlier by a competent Court on the complaint of respondent No. 2, there was no occasion or legal justification for re-opening the matter in regard to the petitioner by issue of summon to him on the same very complaint. In fact, if this is permitted to be done, it would tantamount to a review of the earlier order of discharge. There is no effective reply to this on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) THE result is that the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated November 28, 1985 (Copy Annexure P/3) summoning the petitioner in the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is quashed, in so far as the petition is concerned. Proceedings quashed.;