H S BAWA Vs. MAHINDER PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner is seeking quashing of the "summons" dated 21.8.1998 issued by Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi summoning the petitioner as an accused under Sections 323/325/342/427/506/34 Indian Penal Code in the case "Mohinder Prashad Vs. M.R. Kathuria and Ors., inter-alia pleading that he was not named as an accused in the complaint; that the person arrayed as the accused No.4 was "D.S. Bawa" and the summons.were issued in the name of "H.S. Bawa" (petitioner). He also prayed for an inquiry against the erring officials in this regard. Para 3 of the petition read :-

(2.) In support of his petition, petitioner has filed "summons" served on him as (Annexure-A ), copy of the complaint (Annexure-B), list of witnesses; and a certificate issued by his department showing that he was undergoing some training at the relevant time. The petitioner neither filed impugned order of summoning nor the pre-summoning evidence recorded by the trial court before issuing summons. He did not appear before the trial court and straightaway approched this Court. The petition is duly supported by an affidavit of the petitioner . On the above pleadings on 24.9.1998, notice was issued and proceedings before the trial court were stayed. It was ordered:

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sh.Satish Aggarwal, counsel for petitioner argued that in the complaint the accussed was arrayed as "Mr.D.S.Bawa", Inspector Customs (Prev.) thus summons in the name of "H.S.Bawa", could not be issued, and that it is an abuse of the process of the court, the said summons is liable to be quashed. He further argued that an enquiry should be instituted in the matter. Learned counsel for respondent/complainant, on the other hand, argued that in fact petitioner is guilty of concealing material facts; that. on account, of typing error the name of the petitioner was wrongly typed as D.S.Bawa in stead of H.S. Bawa in the complaint. The respondent-complainant moved an application; by orders dated 6.3.97, correction was permitted by learned trial court. He seeks to place on record copy of the order passed by learned trial court in the presence of the counsel for petitioner. The order is taken on record. The order reads: