Manjinder Singh vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 4378 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. 2402/2012 & CRL.M.A. 12615/2012

      MANJINDER SINGH                   ..... Petitioner
                   Through              Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior
                                        Advocate with Mr. P.S. Bindra,
                                        Advocate
                     versus

      STATE                             ..... Respondent
                              Through   None

                                        Reserved on      : 20th July, 2012
%                                       Date of Decision : 24th July, 2012
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                              JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J :

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

setting aside the order dated 19th May, 2012 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, West-02, Delhi whereby the petitioner's revision

petition seeking quashing of summoning order dated 22nd December,

2011 was rejected. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the

summoning order dated 22nd December, 2011 passed by learned

ACMM, West, Delhi.

2. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner has been summoned by the trial

court even though due to insufficient evidence, petitioner's name had

been kept in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet and he had not been

chargesheeted.

3. Mr. Kaul further states that the trial court and ASJ failed to

appreciate that according to FSL report the alleged signature of the

petitioner on the Sale Deed dated 22nd March, 1996 did not match

with the petitioner's signature. He also points out that the

investigating agency on the basis of the expert opinion had stated that

the thumb impression on the Sale Deed was not that of the petitioner.

4. However, it is settled law that even if a person is not included

as an accused in a charge-sheet, he can be summoned by the

Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence, if some material is

found against him. In fact, the Magistrate takes cognizance of offence

and not of the offender. In SWIL Ltd. Vs. State of Delhi and Anr.,

(2001) 6 SCC 670 the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"7. .........There is no bar under Section 190 CrPC that once the process is issued against some accused, on the next date, the Magistrate cannot issue process to some other person against whom there is some material on record, but his name is not included as accused in the charge-sheet."

5. Since there is a serious allegation against the petitioner that he

had impersonated Mr. Balvinder Singh and signed the Sale Deed

dated 22nd March, 1996 as attesting witness, the trial court has

summoned him.

6. Moreover, the FSL report and the expert opinion are not

conclusive of the petitioner's innocence or guilt. This Court has no

doubt that the report and opinion referred to by Mr. Kaul would be

given due weightage and consideration by the trial court at the

appropriate stage.

7. Consequently, at this stage no interference is called for with the

impugned orders. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed but with

no order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J JULY 24, 2012 rn