Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THE relevant facts given in this petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) are as follows: - - A complaint was filed against the petitioners and one Sewa Dass, Chela Ganesh Dass under sections 323, 407, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code in the Court of Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jind on September 21, 1974. It was dismissed by him on November 21, 1974, after recording preliminary evidence on the ground that it was false and baseless. The complainant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge who accepted the same on March 10, 1975 and remanded the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate with the direction that the matter should be decided afresh after further enquiry by him or it should be sent to any other Magistrate except Mr. Chaudhry for the said purpose. The Chief Judicial Magistrate entrusted the case to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. He on February 5, 1976 without recording any fresh evidence ordered summoning of the accused -respondents under section 307 of the Penal Code. The petitioners filed a revision against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 397 of the Code to the Additional Sessions Judge Jind, who dismissed it on March 2, 1977, observing that he could not decide that matter in revision and the proper thing for the petitioners was to move the High Court under section 402 of the Code. The petitioners came to this Court under the said section.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Magistrate dismissed the complaint of Des Raj Dass, respondent after recording preliminary evidence vide order dated November 21, 1974 and the learned Sessions Judge in revision remanded it for further enquiry. It is argued by him that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, without holding any enquiry summoned the petitioners and Sewa Dass on the basis of the same evidence. According to the learned counsel, the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is prima facie illegal and liable to be set aside. Mr. Puran Chand, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly concede that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate should have passed the order after holding further enquiry and that his order summoning the petitioners on the basis of the evidence recorded by the Magistrate prior to the dismissal of the complaint was illegal. He, however, argues that the case may be remanded to the Magistrate to decided the matter afresh after holding fresh enquiry as directed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated March 10, 1975. Mr. Pritpal Singh Sandhu learned counsel for the petitioners, has no objection if the case is remanded as argued by Mr. Puran Chand. In the circumstances I accept the petition and quash the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated February 5, 1976 and direct him to decide the matter afresh after making further enquiry. The complainant is directed to appear in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jind, on November 14, 1977.;