Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1391 (PNJ)

Niranjan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-12-13

VIRENDER SINGH

body2002
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioner herein is seeking the quashing of the impugned order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P.2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Sections 420/465/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, `the Code). 2. F.I.R. No. 03 dated 20.01.2000 under Sections 420/465/468/471 of the Code was registered by the concerned Police Station Joga, District Mansa on a letter bearing No. 75/SPS, dated 13.01.2000 sent by Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, to the concerned Police Station on the allegations that the petitioner had done wrong attestation of a form of his son Sukhwinder for making his yellow card. In fact a complaint was filed by one Beant Singh to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa who had subsequently sent a letter for the registration of the present case. It is the case of the petitioner that during investigation the specimen signatures of the petitioner for comparing with the alleged signatures on the form, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab at Chandigarh and the disputed signatures were compared with the standard signatures and it was found that the specimen signatures did not tally with the signatures on the original document and on the basis of the investigation, the cancellation report was filed before the Ilaqa Magistrate in which the complainant Beant Singh was summoned who made a statement that he did not agree with the cancellation report and on the basis of his statement the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide impugned order (Annexure P.2) ordered the summoning of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order Annexure P.2 is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. 3. While issuing notice of motion, operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 9.4.2003. In the reply filed on behalf of the State by Superintendent of Police (Detective) Mansa, it has been asserted in so many words that the cancellation report was prepared after obtaining legal opinion from D.D.A. Legal Mansa and the same was put up before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Mansa for approval and that the order of the Court cannot be challenged by the prosecution in any manner as it is within the powers of the Court to agree with the cancellation report or not. 4. I have heard Mr. 4. I have heard Mr. Rakesh K. Nagpal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. I have also perused the assertions, made in the petition, the reply filed by the respondent and the other relevant documents attached thereto. 5. In my opinion, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Annexure P.2) is liable to be quashed on the short ground that it is not a speaking order at all. Even if the Magistrate had to summon the accused (petitioner), the statement of the complainant alone could not be made the basis of summoning. The concluding lines of the impugned order read as under :- "The complainant was summoned and made the statement that he made his statement on the basis of which the FIR was lodged so he was not agree with the cancellation report. In view of the statement of the complainant, the cancellation report is rejected. The accused be summoned u/s 420/465/468/471 I.P.C. for 15.2.2002." 6. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Court has not at all applied its mind on the cancellation report submitted by the prosecution agency or the other documents relied upon by the prosecution agency in support of the cancellation report on the basis of which the investigation was conducted till then. Since the impugned order Annexure P.2 suffers from inherent infirmity being a non-speaking order, the same is hereby quashed and the Magistrate is directed to pass a speaking order after seeing the complete police file and the cancellation report expeditiously preferably within three months from the receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the petition is allowed in the above terms. Office is directed to send a copy of the order forthwith to the concerned magistrate.