Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1012 (PNJ)

Surjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2005-09-21

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2005
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of the order dated 25.1.2002 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, pursuant whereto the petitioners were summoned to stand trial. 2. During the course of the trial, the prosecution filed an application, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C, for summoning the petitioners. Vide impugned order, the petitioners were summoned to face trial alongwith the other accused. 3. Counsel for the petitioners prays that the impugned order be set aside on the ground that it is devoid of any reasons, non-speaking and does not meet the parameters of a judicial order. 4. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the trial Court has adverted to the facts, the arguments raised and has in that context ordered summoning of the petitioners. While deciding an application, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court is not required to record detailed reasons and, therefore, the impugned order does not merit setting aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court, apart from noticing the facts, the arguments raised and the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has assigned no reasons, whatsoever, for summoning the petitioners. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows :- "The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is thus allowed and accused namely Mohinder Kaur w/o Bhajan Singh, Manjit Kaur wife of Avtar Singh, Hardeep Kaur w/o Gurmukh Singh, Surinder Kaur w/o Jagjit Singh, Manjit Kaur w/o Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal Kaur w/o Bant Singh, Harminder Kaur w/o Harbans Singh, Satpal Kaur w/o Hari Singh, Surjit Kaur w/o Mukhtiar Singh and Mohinder Kaur w/o Amarjit Singh be summoned to face trial for 26.2.2002." 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no reasons, whatsoever, have been assigned for summoning the petitioners. While allowing an application, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., a Court is required to record its satisfaction and assign reasons to hold that the person, sought to be summoned, has committed an offence for which he can be tried together with the other accused. While allowing an application, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., a Court is required to record its satisfaction and assign reasons to hold that the person, sought to be summoned, has committed an offence for which he can be tried together with the other accused. The impugned order, as noticed above, does not disclose any reasons, whatsoever, or any satisfaction recorded, in terms of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, the order dated 25.1.2002 (Annexure P-7) is set aside sand the matter is remitted to the trial Court to decide the application, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. afresh, in accordance with the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.