CRM-M/32036/2024 of SUKHCHAIN SINGH AND ANR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR on 23 July 2026

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 19.03.2024 passed by ld. JMIC, Zira, in CIS No. COMI/13/2022 dated 01.02.2022 wherein in a complaint case petitioners were summoned under Sections 307/452/324/323/506/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act to face trial may kindly be quashed and complaint dated 01.02.2022 filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners may kindly be dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offences under Sections 307, 452, 436, 324, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Zira, vide order dated 19.03.2024, summoned the petitioners to face trial under the aforesaid sections. The petitioners have challenged the said summoning RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh order, primarily alleging that the complaint is a counterblast arising out of previous disputes between the parties and that petitioner No.1 was not present at the spot and the police investigation in respect of the same occurrence was also conducted and petitioners were found to be innocent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned summoning order has been passed without proper appreciation of the material available on record and the relevant provisions of law. It is argued that petitioner No.1 was not present at the place of occurrence, which is duly supported by the statements of witnesses, CCTV footage and call detail records. It is further contended that the complainant had previous disputes with the petitioners and that the present complaint is a counterblast, instituted with a view to pressurize and harass them. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the police investigation relating to the same occurrence, the learned Magistrate was required to comply with the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. and stay the proceedings in the complaint case until the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was considered and appropriate orders were passed.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations contained in the complaint, supported by the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners.

4. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh

6. At this stage it would be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such enquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.

(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.

(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned summoning order dated 19.03.2024 cannot be sustained in its present form, particularly when the record indicates that a police investigation in respect of the same occurrence was also conducted and the procedure contemplated under Section 210 Cr.P.C. was not duly followed. However, ld. JMIC, Zira has not considered the fact that the Court has no option except to stay the proceedings in the complaint case and to decide and dispose of the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C submitted by police whereas in the present case learned Magistrate failed to do so.

8. Keeping in view the object and scope of the enquiry RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, it is incumbent upon the Court, before passing an order summoning the accused, to consider the cancellation report submitted by the police and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The same view was taken by this Hon’ble Court in Kuldip Raj Mahan v. Hukam Chand, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 370.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Zira, to consider the complaint afresh, after taking into account the police report/investigation relating to the same occurrence and by following the procedure prescribed under Section 210 Cr.P.C., and thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made herein.

(H.S.GREWAL) 23.07.2026

JUDGE renu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh