S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) Lalit Mohan has sought the quashing of the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirra on September 5, 1985, where by the summoning order dated January 28, 1985, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, was set aside.
(2.) WITHOUT going into the details of the complaint, in substance the allegations therein amount to these, that Lalit Mohan filed a complaint against the accused-respondents under Sections 148/323/427/504/506/149, India Penal Code. The trial Magistrate found a prima facie case against the respondents and accordingly summoned them for the offence under Sections 427/149, Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents went up in revision and the same was allowed by the learned Session Judge, Sirsa, who found that it was not a fit case for summoning the accused for the said offence and accordingly set aside the impugned order. This led the complaint to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. It is by now well settled as to what approach has to be adopted by the trial Magistrate in judging as to whether sufficient grounds exist for summoning the accused or not. In Chandra D. Singh v. Parkash Chandra Bose alias Bose AIR 1963 S.C. 1430, it has been held that where there was prima facie evidence, even though an accused might have a defence that the offence was committed by some other person or persons, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process could not be refused. It was also further enunciated in that judgment that what the Magistrate had to be satisfied with was there was sufficient ground for proceeding. Whether the evidence was adequate for supporting the conviction, could be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. These very views have been reiterated by there Lordships in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 S.C. 2018; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 Cur. L.J. (Crl.) 35 and Supdt and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja AIR 1980 S.C. 52.
(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid discussion of law which emerges from an examination of the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, a perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, shows that his approach has been as if he was seeing at this stage as to where as the accused could be convicted or not, which approach in appropriate at a trial stage and not at a stage where it is merely to be seen as to where as the accused are to be summoned or not.;