JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, complainant Sumandeep Singh son of Satpal Singh (respondent) (for brevity “the complainant”) filed a criminal complaint(Annexure P-1) against the petitioners Sarabjit Singh, Kawaljit Singh and their other co-accused Kulbir Singh son of Amrik Singh, under Sections 302/34 IPC, inter alia, with the following allegations:- “That on 18.11.2005, deceased and Kulbir Singh accused quarreled with each other at Fatehgarh Churian and Complainant was with his father at that time. Kulbir Singh threatened Satpal Singh that you have beaten me with the help of your son and he (Kulbir Singh) would kill you to death, and your whole family would not be able to do anything. Deceased Satpal Singh was headof his whole family. On 20.11.2005 Kulbir Singh spent half day with Sarabjit and Kawaljit house. That on 21.11.2005 atabout 6.30 p.m., Complainant and Harmanjit Singh were present at Malewal on the Fatehgarh and D.B.N. Road and saw Satpal Singh on his motorcycle coming from Fatehgarh Churian and went towards Dera Baba Nanak and soon after saw accused Kulbir Singh driving his car bearing Regd.No.PB-58-6695 along with two more persons having wrapped lohi on their faces one was sitting in front seat and other sitting on back seat of Maruti car 800 CC. Taking apprehension Complainant and Harmanjit Singh followed them on their scooter. After covering about ¾ kilometers reached near the car of accused party and person sitting in front seat along with Kulbir Singh exhorted to Kulbir Singh to hit car and kill Satpal Singh and on this Kulbir Singh hit his car with the motor cycle of Satpal Singh. On hearing lalkara Satpal Singh took his motorcycle towards kacha portion of the road but on receipt of hitting car to his motor cycle Satpal Singh fell down and his turban fell down and he started to run to save his life. In the meantime, all the three accused came out of the car chased and surrounded Satpal Singh and all this was witnessed in the light of scooter and car as light of the vehicles were on. At that time, Kulbir Singh was armed with datar whereas accused Sarbjit Singh and Kawaljit Singh were having hockey in their hands. In the meantime, all the three accused came out of the car chased and surrounded Satpal Singh and all this was witnessed in the light of scooter and car as light of the vehicles were on. At that time, Kulbir Singh was armed with datar whereas accused Sarbjit Singh and Kawaljit Singh were having hockey in their hands. Complainant and Harmanjit Singh raised alarm but in their sight Kulbir Singh inflicted datar blow on the left side of the head of Satpal Singh and later fell down than Sarabjit Singh gave hockey blow on the right side of forehead of Satpal Singh, then second blow with datar was caused by Kulbir Singh on the left ear of Satpal Singh. Kawaljit Singh then gave hockey blow above right eyebrow of Satpal Singh then all the accused gave more injuries, whenever Complainant came forward to save his father all the accused threatened and chased to kill him and Harmanjit Singh. After seeing Satpal Singh motionless, all the accused went in the same car towards Dera Baba Nanak. Complainant and Harmanjit Singh then went near Satpal Singh and tried to shift him to P.S.Dera Baba Nanak but Satpal Singh died on the spot. That all the accused came down at petrol pump situated on the Fatehgarh – Dera Baba Nanak road to fill up fuel in the car and both accused who had wrapped lohies put off from their faces and were identified as accused Sarabjit Singh and Kawaljit Singh by Balwinder Singh son of Sh.Jasbir Singh, resident of V.P.O. Kalanaur who had come with his companion Mohinder Singh also to fill up fuel in their scooter. All the three accused were heard saying to each other that Satta might had died till now.” 2. The case of the complainant further proceeds that after the occurrence, all the accused decamped towards Dera Baba Nanak side. He (complainant) remained with the dead body of his father and sent Harmanjit Singh to lodge the report, where SHO Manmohan Singh met him. He narrated the entire sequence of events and the SHO assured him to take appropriate action against the accused after the spot inspection. Subsequently, the police termed the occurrence as accident case under the political pressure of the accused. 3. He narrated the entire sequence of events and the SHO assured him to take appropriate action against the accused after the spot inspection. Subsequently, the police termed the occurrence as accident case under the political pressure of the accused. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, narrating the sequence of events contained in the complaint(Annexure P-1) and attributing the specific motive, in all, according to the complainant that all the accused including the petitioners, have committed the murder of his father Satpal Singh. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the complainant filed the complaint(Annexure P-1) against the petitioners-accused in the manner depicted hereinabove. 4. Taking cognizance of the complaint and considering the preliminary oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala, summoned the accused, to face the trial under Sections 302/34 IPC, by means of impugned summoning order dated 11.08.2006(Annexure P-2), the operative part of which is as under:- “Complainant Sumandeep Singh has appeared as CW1 and reiterated the facts of the case that his father Satpal Singh was serving in market committee, Fatehgarh Churian and accused Kulbir Singh was also serving in the same office. His father and Kulbir Singh had dispute between them regarding the seniority and promotion of their service. His father was Halqa Akali leader and supporters of Shiromani Akali Dall, whereas, Kulbir Singh was congress man and right hand of present M.L.A. Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa. On 18.11.2005, after attending his college, he went to the office of his father, where his father and Kulbir Singh were engaged in fighting between them. He tried to separate them and at the same time, Kulbir Singh accused warned his father that he had called his son to beat him and he (Kulbir Singh) would kill him. On 20.11.2005 Kulbir Singh went to their village in the house of accused Kanwaljit Singh and Sarabjit Singh sons of Hari Singh. Kulbir Singh spent more than half day in their office on that day. On 21.11.2005 he was worried that his father and(sic.) had not come in time to the village so he took Harmanjit Singh, his first cousin, with him and went to see his father as they had apprehension at the hands of Kulbir Singh and other above said accused, as accused Sarabjit Singh and Kanwaljit Singh had old enmity with his family and litigation between were pending in the courts also. They reached at bus stand, Mallewal and saw his father riding on motorcycle was coming back to village and immediately accused Kulbir Singh was driving Maruti car No.PB-58-6695 was following his father and two more persons having lohies upon them, were sitting in the car, one with the seat of Kulbir Singh and other on the back seat. In apprehension, he and Harmanjit Singh followed them and hardly, they had covered 2/3 kms. Then they heard the person sitting with Kulbir Singh accused, exhorted lalkara as motorcycle was at a little distance from car then said Kulbir Singh hit the car and kill Satpal Singh. On hearing lalkara, his father Satpal Singh tried to take motorcycle to Kacha side, but Kulbir Singh hit him with his car. His father fell down and his turban went off. His father stood up and tried to save his life and started to run. At the same time, all the accused Kulbir Singh having datar in his hand, whereas, two other occupants of the car were identified, having hockey in their hands in the light of car, which was kept started and their scooter. Both accused having lohies were identified as Sarabjit Singh and Kanwaljit Singh. All the three accused chased his father and encircled him. First blow was given by Kulbir Singh with datar on the head of his father. Kulbir Singh gave second blow with his datar, which fell on the left side of the head of his father cutting left ear also. Then Sarabjit Singh gave hockey blow, on the left eye-brow of his father. He and Harmanjit Singh kept on raising alarm and when they tried to save his father, all the accused threatened to kill them and they also tried to cause them injuries. His father became unconscious and thinking that his father had died, all the accused ran away with their respective weapons by sitting in the car and went towards Dera Baba Nanak side. He found his father dead and remained with the dead body and sent Harmanjit Singh to inform the police at Dera Baba Nanak, where SHO replied him that after seeing the dead body of Satpal, then they would register the case. He found his father dead and remained with the dead body and sent Harmanjit Singh to inform the police at Dera Baba Nanak, where SHO replied him that after seeing the dead body of Satpal, then they would register the case. Harmanjit Singh went to tell parents about the murder of Satpal Singh on telephone at S.T.D. Near T-point, Batala and he found Kulbir Singh had parked his car there at one side and was telling on mobile to Halqa M.L.A. Sukhwinder Singh Randhawa that he, Sarabjit Singh and Kanwalljit Singh had kiled his and their enemy Satpal and kindly help him. After about one hour, the police went to the spot and started to see the dead body and injuries upon the dead body. Police also collected turban, which was lying at a considerably distance from the dead body and at the same time, SHO Manmohan Singh received telephone call and he was heard saying to Randhawa Sahib that he is always their obedient and he would do as per their instructions in this case. The police took the dead body to Police Station and he, Harmanjit Singh and Didar Singh and Rupinder Singh were asked by the SHO to sign on blank papers, which they did as per the instructions of the SHO what he wrote later on, on these papers is known to the police. But the police never arrested the accused. At the time of getting their signatures, they were asked to take dead body alongwith two police constables in civil hospital, Batala and when on 22.11.2005, doctor was to conduct post-mortem, SHO Manmohan Singh arrived there and pressurized the doctor to write road side accident saying that this is the instructions of M.L.A. Sukhwinder Singh Randhawa and the doctor did so, even against their objections. Then he sent registered letters to Hon’ble Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, SSP, Batala and other high ups, but no action was taken by the police despite of their approach to all high ups. Ex.PA is complaint filed by him in the court Mark ‘A’ is photocopies of registered receipts sent to the High ups. Then he sent registered letters to Hon’ble Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, SSP, Batala and other high ups, but no action was taken by the police despite of their approach to all high ups. Ex.PA is complaint filed by him in the court Mark ‘A’ is photocopies of registered receipts sent to the High ups. CW-2 Dr.Lakhbir Singh, has proved copy of post mortem report Ex.PB, of the dead body of Satpal Singh son of Mohan Singh which was conducted on 22.11.2005 at 1.55 P.M. CW3 Harmanjit Singh and CW4 Balwinder Singh who were the eye witnesses, have supported the case of the complainant.” 5. The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, for quashing the impugned complaint(Annexure P-1) and the summoning order(Annexure P-2), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The case set-up by the petitioners, in brief, insofar as relevant was that, there was long standing enmity between the parties, they have been falsely implicated by the complainant, there is a delay in filing the complaint and there are also contradictions in the ocular version and the medical evidence. The petitioners accused further claimed that the deceased had died in a road accident and the complainant has set-up a false story of murder, in which, the Magistrate has summoned them, by virtue of impugned summoning order(Annexure P-2), without application of mind and ignoring the fact that the deceased had died in the accident. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order(Annexure P-2), in the manner described hereinabove. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 8. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant, due to enmity and since the Magistrate did not apply his mind before summoning the accused, so, the impugned summoning order(Annexure P-2), is illegal, is neither tenable nor the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case M/s Pepsi Food Limited Versus Special Judicial Magistrate, 1998 A.I.R.(SC) 128 and of this Court in cases Arun Jha and another Versus State of Haryana and another, 2006(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 300; Anu Joshi Versus State of Haryana and another, 2007(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 567; Anil Dhawan and others Versus Gurnam Singh, 2008 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 376; and Madan Mohan Nayar Versus State of Punjab, [2008(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2683] : 2009(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 52, are at all applicable, wherein it was held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It was also observed that the Magistrate should not issue the process mechanically merely on the basis of some statements of the alleged witnesses and the Court should pass a speaking order to summon the accused. 9. There can hardly be any dispute in regard to the crux of the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners accused in the present controversy. In the instant case, as reproduced hereinabove, the Magistrate has applied his mind, passed a very detailed and speaking order (running into 15 pages). He has duly considered the statements of complainant- Sumandeep Singh-CW1, Dr.Lakhbir Singh-CW2, and eye witnesses Harmanjit Singh-CW3 and Ballwinder Singh-CW4, besides other documentary evidence and correctly summoned the accused. Thus, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 10. He has duly considered the statements of complainant- Sumandeep Singh-CW1, Dr.Lakhbir Singh-CW2, and eye witnesses Harmanjit Singh-CW3 and Ballwinder Singh-CW4, besides other documentary evidence and correctly summoned the accused. Thus, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 10. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, very very serious and direct allegations are assigned to the petitioners-accused that, they intentionally committed the murder of the father of the complainant, which was subsequently shown to be a case of accident by the police, under the pressure of the accused. Attributing the clear motive, the specific roles are assigned to the accused in the complaint(Annexure P-1). Prime facie, there is ample evidence on record, to involve the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of heinous crime of murder. As to whether the accused have committed the murder of Satpal Singh, or he died in a road accident, whether the petitioners were falsely implicated due to enmity between them, whether the police has illegally converted the case of murder into the case of accident under the influence of the accused, whether there are contradictions in ocular version and the medical evidence or what would be its effect, whether the motive is false or not, or the story of the prosecution is highly improbable, as urged on behalf of the petitioners, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Be that as it may, but it cannot possibly be saith by any stretch of imagination, at this stage, that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and there is no evidence on record against them. 11. Sequelly, the Magistrate, after considering the entire material on record, rightly summoned the accused to face the trial. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioners have straightway jumped, to file the present petition for quashing the impugned complaint(Annexure P-1) and the summoning order(Annexure P-2) at this initial stage. 12. As is clear that, the Code of Criminal Procedure is the epitome of law and is complete Code relating to Criminal Procedure from the first stage of filing the complaint, framing of charge till the conclusion of the trial and all other related matters. 12. As is clear that, the Code of Criminal Procedure is the epitome of law and is complete Code relating to Criminal Procedure from the first stage of filing the complaint, framing of charge till the conclusion of the trial and all other related matters. Likewise, if there is no material/evidence on record, then the accused would be discharged. Otherwise, charge would be framed and the trial will commence. If all such matters which require determination by the trial Judge are to be decided by this Court, in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., then the sanctity of the trial would pale into insignificance and amount to nullify the statutory procedure of trial of the criminal cases, contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not legally permissible. In the present case, even the trial Judge has not yet framed the charges against the accused. In this manner, the complaint and the summoning order cannot legally be quashed, at this initial stage. 13. Not only that, the question, scope and jurisdiction of this Court for quashing a complaint, as envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not res integra. The power under this Section has to be exercised with great care and caution and on sound principle. These powers are not to be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution. It is well settled proposition of law that in case, on the bare reading of the complaint, the offences are made therefrom, no order can be made for quashment, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was reiterated in case Som Mittal Versus Government of Karnataka, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. 14. Again, it was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Jeffrey J. Diermeier and another Versus State of West Bengal and another, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 2972] : 2010(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 183, that there are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice. 15. The indicated benchmark and the requisite ingredients for quashing the criminal prosecution emerging out from the aforesaid judgments are totally lacking in the instant case and the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 16. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 18. Needless to state that, nothing recorded hereinabove, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the course of trial, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition only. ---------0.B.S.0------------