Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Simbhaoli Sugars Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117176
CRM-M-13816-2023 -1 - 2023:PHHC:117176
275 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13816-2023
Date of decision: 04.09.2023
M/s Simbhaoli Sugars Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the complaint bearing CIS No.COMA/405/2002
dated 16.06.2022, CNR No.HRFB03-047857-2022 (Annexure P-1), titled as
State Vs. Simbhaoli Sugars and others as well as the summoning order dated
16.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Faridabad and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned summoning order dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) has been
passed by the trial Court without any application of mind and without giving
reasons as to why the offence sought to be projected by the complainant were
made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
"Lalan Kumar Singh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 AIR
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117176
CRM-M-13816-2023 -2 - 2023:PHHC:117176
(Supreme Court) 5151", wherein similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the following observations were made:-
"28. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality.
The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether
sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The
formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order
itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given
therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie
case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not
contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made
to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v.
Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609, which reads
thus:
"51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with
the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground
for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of
a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or
to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a
consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the
complaint, examination of the complainant and his
witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that
there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an
offence, he shall issue process against the accused.
52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or
refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A
person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a
complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been
made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it
cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely
to result in a conviction.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117176
CRM-M-13816-2023 -3 - 2023:PHHC:117176
53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is
these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be
formed only after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and
formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order
itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given
therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima
facie case against the accused, though the order need not
contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad
in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from a
perusal of the impugned summoning order dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure P-2), it
is evident that the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, did not apply his mind
in proceeding against the petitioner/accused. In fact, after taking into
consideration, the averments made in the complaint and the accompanying
documents, the Magistrate has to formulate whether the material on record
disclosed the offence or not and he had to pass an order by keeping in view the
same. He further submits that the petitioner shall confine his prayer to set aside
the summoning order only on this limited ground and reserves his right to raise
all other pleas at a later stage, in accordance with law.
4. Learned State counsel has also fairly conceded that while issuance
a summoning order, the trial Court has to apply his judicial mind and the
impugned order is non-speaking. Consequently, she submits that she has no
objection, in case the impugned order is set aside and liberty is granted to the
trial Court to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117176
CRM-M-13816-2023 -4 - 2023:PHHC:117176
5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties,
the present petition is allowed, the impugned summoning order dated
16.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Faridabad is ordered to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad enabling him to pass an order by applying his
judicial mind, in view of the principles law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Lalan Kumar's case (Supra).
6. The present petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending application, if any, is also disposed of.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
04.09.2023 JUDGE
hemlata
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117176
4 of 4
