CRM-M-11949-2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 CRM-M-11949-2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.07.2026 Iqbal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. B. S. Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab. Mr. R. V. S. Chugh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budhlada in Criminal complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 307, 452, 325, 323, 324, 505, 506 and 34 of IPC summoning the respondents No. 2 and 3 to face trial for commission of aforementioned offences was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for passing a fresh order. The petitioner further prays for restoration of the summoning order dated 31.03.2016. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11949-2018 (O&M) -2- present petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the petitioner alleging that respondents No.2 and 3, who are husband and wife and serving police officials, had been harassing the petitioner's sister after her marriage by instigating her husband to subject her to cruelty and by themselves participating in the acts of harassment. It was alleged that on 18.07.2014 at about 9:00 p.m., the private respondents forcibly trespassed into the petitioner's house, abused him and assaulted him. Respondent No.3 allegedly caught hold of the petitioner's beard and pulled it, while respondent No.2 allegedly inflicted a blow with a kapa (sharp-edged weapon), which struck the petitioner's left shoulder when he attempted to save himself. On the raising of alarm by the petitioner and his son, the respondents allegedly fled from the spot after extending threats to kill the petitioner. The petitioner further alleged that despite reporting the incident to the police and undergoing medico-legal examination, no action was taken against the respondents on account of their influence in the police department, thereby compelling the petitioner to file the aforementioned complaint. 3. During the preliminary evidence, the petitioner examined himself, his son, an independent witness and the Medical Officer, who proved the medico-legal report recording an incised wound on the petitioner's left shoulder caused by a sharp weapon. Upon consideration of the preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budhlada, vide order dated 31.03.2016, summoned respondents No.2 and 3 to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 506 and 34 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred a revision petition, which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide order dated 08.02.2018, whereby the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11949-2018 (O&M) -3- summoning order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial Court for passing a fresh order. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the revisional Court is legally unsustainable and suffers from complete non-appreciation of the material available on record. It is argued that the learned Magistrate had duly considered the complaint, the statements of the petitioner and other witnesses, as well as the medical evidence before arriving at the prima facie satisfaction that offences under Sections 452, 324, 506 and 34 IPC were made out against the respondents. The revisional Court erred in observing that the summoning order was non-speaking and that the evidence had not been properly discussed. The learned Magistrate had sufficiently adverted to the allegations in the complaint, the testimonies of the witnesses and the medico-legal evidence while recording satisfaction for summoning the accused and at the stage of issuance of process, only a prima facie case was required to be seen. 5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional Court also erred in faulting the Magistrate for not recording reasons as to why offences under Sections 307, 323, 325 and 504 IPC were not made out. It is submitted that once the Magistrate found sufficient grounds to summon the accused for certain offences, there was no legal requirement to give elaborate reasons for declining to summon them for the remaining offences, particularly when no prejudice was caused to the accused. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside, thereby restoring the aforementioned MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11949-2018 (O&M) -4- summoning order. 6. Learned State counsel has chosen not to raise any argument as the dispute arise out of a private complaint. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which is a well reasoned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the summoning order as the same was cryptic and did not reflect due application of judicial mind. It is argued that although the complaint alleged commission of offences under Sections 307, 452, 325, 324, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, the learned Magistrate summoned the respondents only for offences under Sections 452, 324, 506 and 34 IPC without assigning any reasons as to why the remaining offences were not made out. The order, therefore, cannot be termed a reasoned judicial order. It is further submitted that summoning an accused is a serious matter and the Magistrate is required to scrutinize the allegations and the preliminary evidence before issuing process. The impugned summoning order merely reproduces the allegations without discussing the evidence or recording satisfaction regarding the ingredients of the offences. the revisional Court has neither dismissed the complaint nor exonerated the respondents, but has only remitted the matter to the trial Court for passing a fresh, reasoned order after proper appreciation of the material on record. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has placed reliance upon the authority cited as Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that a summoning order must reflect due application of mind. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11949-2018 (O&M) -5- 8. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 9. The sole question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned revisional Court committed any illegality in setting aside the summoning order dated 31.03.2016 and remitting the matter to the learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order on the point of summoning. 10. A perusal of the summoning order dated 31.03.2016 reveals that although the complaint alleged commission of offences under Sections 307, 452, 325, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and the complainant had examined four witnesses besides producing documentary medical evidence, the learned Magistrate summoned the private respondents only for offences under Sections 452, 324, 506 and 34 IPC. However, except reproducing the allegations contained in the complaint and noticing the statements of the witnesses, the order does not disclose any discussion of the oral or documentary evidence, nor does it indicate the reasons which persuaded the Court to summon the accused for some offences while declining to do so for the remaining offences. 11. It is well settled that issuance of process is not an empty formality. Though at the stage of summoning the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, the order must nevertheless reflect that the Magistrate has applied his judicial mind to the material placed before it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods’ case (supra) has categorically held that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order issuing process must demonstrate due application of mind to the allegations and the material on record. 12. In the present case, the revisional Court has not ventured into the merits of the allegations nor has it returned any finding absolving the private MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11949-2018 (O&M) -6- respondents of the accusations levelled against them. It has merely found that the summoning order suffers from the vice of being cryptic and non-speaking and has consequently directed the learned Magistrate to reconsider the matter by passing a fresh, reasoned order after evaluating the preliminary evidence and recording reasons as to which offences are prima facie made out. Such a course neither prejudices the complainant nor forecloses his remedy. Rather, it ensures that the order of summoning satisfies the legal requirement of a reasoned judicial determination. 13. This Court finds no jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity in the approach adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The impugned order merely restores the matter to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law and cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 14. Needless to observe that the learned trial Court shall reconsider the question of summoning independently, uninfluenced by any observations made herein and pass a fresh speaking order strictly on the basis of the material available on record. 17.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document