JUDGMENT Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral) By way of this common order, I dispose off the aforementioned two petitions. Both petitions relate to proceedings emanating from same occurrence. Thus, the same are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. The narration of the facts is a tale of an ordinary municipal election turning into horrific and gory incident. FIR No.17 dated 10.02.2021 registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 188, 148, 149 & 120B IPC at Police Station City Moga, District Moga, Punjab came into being on the statement made by one Gurtej Singh @ Raju Kular whose wife was contesting for the office of Municipal Council on the ticket of Shiromani Akali Dal with respect to murder of Harminder Singh @ Pappu and Jasdeep Singh @ Bhola who were allegedly trampled by Pajero vehicle driven by Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, whose wife Paramjit Kaur Sidhu was the contestant from the same Ward as the Congress candidate. 2.1. On the representation made by the accused-party for re-investigation, SIT was constituted by S.S.P, Moga. SIT concluded that the accused sped away from vehicle in order to save themselves from the crowd of the opposite party and thus, offence under Section 304 IPC was made out and not that punishable under Section 302 IPC. On 02.08.2021 i.e. almost after six months of the occurrence, a criminal complaint was filed by Paramjit Kaur Sidhu (respondent No.1 in CRM-M-20406-2022), wife of the main accused Narinderpal Singh Sidhu (petitioner in CRM-M-22131-2023), seeking summoning of 18 persons including the complainant/respondent No.2-Gurtej Singh qua the same occurrence claiming that Gurtej Singh, with an intent to kill Jaslovepreet Singh, tried to hit dang blow which landed on the head of Harminder Singh @ Babbu, who fell on the ground. Thus Gurtej Singh being guilty of murder of Harminder Singh be punished for offence under Section 302 IPC. After the vehicle belonging to Narinderpal Singh Sidhu was vandalized, he tried to flee away from the spot in his car which led to stampede resulting in the death of Jasdeep Singh @ Bhola. 3. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga vide order dated 30.04.2022 summoned 15 accused out of 18. The accused in the FIR case is the complainant party in the complaint case. The accused in the FIR case i.e. petitioner- Narinderpal Singh Sidhu seeks quashing of the same in CRM-M No.22131 of 2023. 4. 3. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga vide order dated 30.04.2022 summoned 15 accused out of 18. The accused in the FIR case is the complainant party in the complaint case. The accused in the FIR case i.e. petitioner- Narinderpal Singh Sidhu seeks quashing of the same in CRM-M No.22131 of 2023. 4. The petitioners in CRM-M No.20406 of 2022 have been summoned in the complaint case and they seek quashing of the complaint. Petitioner No.1 has been summoned for offence under Sections 302, 307 & 323 IPC and Petitioners No.2 to 6 have been summoned for offence under Sections 427, 148, 149 and 188 IPC. 5. Dr. Sidhu, learned Senior counsel for the accused in FIR case submits that it is a case of false implication on account of political rivalry. SIT was constituted under the orders passed by S.S.P, Moga which came to the conclusion that it is not a case of murder as there was no intent on part of the accused party to kill the deceased. After the vehicle of petitioner was vandalized by unruly mob, the petitioner in order to save himself, sped away from the scene leading to stampede causing injuries/deaths on the spot. Thus, it's at the most case of Section 304 IPC and not Section 302 IPC. 5.1. He further submits that in the complaint preferred by the accused party, the petitioners in CRM-M No.20406 of 2022 have been summoned after Magistrate found prima facie case against them, thus the FIR deserves to be dismissed as malicious. 6. Per contra, Mr. Deol, learned Senior counsel for petitioners (summoned in a complaint case) submits that it's a case where the accused party has patently abused the process of law. 6.1. He contends that owing to political rivalry the accused party tried to mow down the supporters of the petitioners and as a result 2 men lost their lives in a gruesome act. 6.2. He further submits that petitioner being member of ruling party at the time of occurrence tried to influence the investigation by submitting repeated representations. SIT with intent of helping the accused tried to scale down the offence from the one punishable under Section 302 IPC to that under Section 304 IPC. But the attempt was rightly dissuaded by the responsible officials. Thus report of SIT having been rightly ignored should not be looked at. 6.3. SIT with intent of helping the accused tried to scale down the offence from the one punishable under Section 302 IPC to that under Section 304 IPC. But the attempt was rightly dissuaded by the responsible officials. Thus report of SIT having been rightly ignored should not be looked at. 6.3. He refers to order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench being CRR No.868 of 2022, whereby revision petition filed by accused party against order dated 31.03.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga framing charges against accused party under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 323 IPC read with Sections 148 & 149 IPC, has been rejected. Mr. Deol, thus, submits that the accused party having failed in revision petition against the order framing charges under Section 302 IPC, present petition seeking quashing of FIR itself would not be maintainable. 6.4. He further submits that introduction of a new story by wife of the petitioner-Narinderpal Singh Sidhu after six months of the occurrence is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and an attempt to derail legal process. He asserts that even if the allegations levelled in the complaint are taken to be correct on their face value, the same would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case carefully. 8. The incident involved in the present case is of 09.02.2021 at night. FIR was registered on 10.02.2021 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 188, 148, 149 & 120B IPC on the information supplied by Gurtej Singh - an injured witness in the incident. The persons namely Harminder Singh and Jasdeep Singh @ Bhola lost their lives. Police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against 5 accused namely Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, Paramjit Singh, Jasmail Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Gurmeet Singh. On 13.02.2021, representation was submitted by Paramjit Kaur wife of Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, the main accused, for re-investigation of the matter. The same has been placed on record as Annexure P-3 in CRM-M No.22131 of 2023. The operative part thereof reads as under:- "xxxx xxxx xxxx 2. That the said FIR No. 17 has been registered completely falsely and the incident which has been mentioned in the FIR the same did not happen like that. The same has been placed on record as Annexure P-3 in CRM-M No.22131 of 2023. The operative part thereof reads as under:- "xxxx xxxx xxxx 2. That the said FIR No. 17 has been registered completely falsely and the incident which has been mentioned in the FIR the same did not happen like that. With regard to the same number of video clips were made by the people present at the spot as lot of crowd had gathered there. The opposite party are influential and moneyed people and in collusion with the local police have lodged the false FIR whereas before even reaching the spot my husband had called the police on the spot because the opposite party was distributing liquor. Whatever incident had happened the same happened in the presence of police and the press and the accused are not responsible, xxxx xxxx xxxx" 9. After challan was presented on 02.03.2021, similar application was moved before the Trial Court seeking further investigation of the case. With the permission of Court SIT was formed. Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga has been appended with the reply to petition bearing CRM-M No.20406 of 2022 as Annexure R-1/1. The stand of the accused party in FIR case has been reproduced therein as well which reads as under:- "Prosecution has filed an application for permission to conduct further investigation in the above said FIR on the grounds that Paramjit Kaur wife of Narinderpal Singh Sidhu son of Harbans Singh. resident of Shaheed Bhagat Nagar. Moga has moved an application for investigation before SSP. Moga in the above said FIR and same has been marked to SP(Investigation). Moga for inquiry. In the said application. Paramjit Kaur has submitted that the occurrence took place due to stampede at the spot. Challan of above said FIR has already been presented in the Court. On inquiry of application moved by Paramjit Kaur. new facts can come on record. Hence, the present application . " After further investigation, supplementary challan was presented on 27.11.2021. 10. SIT report is also part of record annexed as Annexure R-1/2 with the reply filed by Paramjit Kaur in the aforementioned petition bearing CRM-M No.20406 of 2022. On inquiry of application moved by Paramjit Kaur. new facts can come on record. Hence, the present application . " After further investigation, supplementary challan was presented on 27.11.2021. 10. SIT report is also part of record annexed as Annexure R-1/2 with the reply filed by Paramjit Kaur in the aforementioned petition bearing CRM-M No.20406 of 2022. In SIT report also, the stand of the accused party finds mention as under:- "In connect of the subject of this case itself other applications filed by Paramjit Kaur w/o Narinderpal Singh Sidhu s/o Harbans Singh R/O Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Moga Number 18 PC 9/21 dated 20.02.21, 35 PC 2/21 dated 22.02.21, 20 PC 9/21 dated 22.02.21 and Application Number 32 PC 9/21 dated 09.03.2021 submitted by Jagmohan Sharma S/o Babu Ram R/o House No.2283, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Moga, investigation of which was being conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police Homicide and Forensic Moga, were also received for further proceedings to Superintendent of Police (Investigation) Moga. Which were also examined by Special Investigation Team attached with the main application. Paramjit Kaur has mentioned in her applications that complainant party has submitted wrong facts and have sot registered the FIR. Incidence as shown in the F.I.R. has occurred due to stampede at the spot. In which there is no fault of anyone. Opposite Party had vandalized the vehicles of the applicant. Husband of the applicant had himself called the police at the spot . Persons present at the spot had also made video clips. The applicant has demanded for conducting investigation again by forming a penal of Gazetted Officers, cancellation of false F.I.R. and justice." 11. SIT report further mentions that spot of the occurrence was examined. Both the parties who were summoned. Paramjit Kaur, Gurpreet Singh, Jaspal Singh, Ashwani Kumar, Baljinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Angrej Raj, Captain Baldev Singh, Kulwant Singh were made to join proceedings by SIT. SIT report further mentions that spot of the occurrence was examined. Both the parties who were summoned. Paramjit Kaur, Gurpreet Singh, Jaspal Singh, Ashwani Kumar, Baljinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Angrej Raj, Captain Baldev Singh, Kulwant Singh were made to join proceedings by SIT. Though their statements recorded have not been reproduced in the SIT report but from the following conclusion of the SIT, their stand can be well gathered:- "Conclusion Report:- Till date secret and notified investigation conducted by Special Investigation Team, it transpired that the applicant Paramjit Kaur and her husband Narinderpal Singh Sidhu are Ex Councillor, during Municipal Council Election 2021 applicant Paramjit Kaur was the candidate from Congress Party from Ward Humber 9, Daughter-in-law of the applicant Harmeet Kaur Sidhu W/o Jaslovepreet Singh was independent candidate from Ward Number 7, from the opposite party of the applicant Paramjit Kaur from Akali Dal (Badal) Kulwinder Kaur W/o Gurtej Singh Kular R/o Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Moga was the candidate on dated 09.02.21 husband of candidate from Shiromani Akali Dal Badal Kulwinder Kaur complainant of the case Gurtej Singh along with his fellows was doing campaigning at Kacha Dusanjh Road Moga then husband of candidate of Congress party Paramjit Kaur namely Narinderpal Singh Sidhu also along with his fellows by boarding different vehicles came near to them itself at Kacha Dusanjh Road Moga and started accusing the Complainant of the case party regarding distributing liquor to the voters, Narinderpal Singh Sidhu in this regard also called A. S.I Jaswant Singh Incharge Police Post Focal Point Moga at the spot, who came to the spot within 5-7 minutes itself, who reached the spot and tried to exhort both the parties but both the parties and their supporters were in large numbers were arguing with each other and were abusing each other, during this arguments some unknown persons started vandalizing the Bolero vehicle of Narinder Pal Singh Sidhu Party bearing Number PB-65-M-3724 which was driven by Jaslovepreet Singh S/o Narinderpal Singh Sidhu and broken front and rear glass of the Bolero vehicle, thereafter Narinderpal Singh Sidhu party sped away their vehicles momentarily, at the time of speeding away the vehicles Jasdeep Singh alias Bhola S/o Pritam Singh R/O Tarewala and Harminder Singh alias Babbu S/o Ujagar Singh R/o Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Moga. complainant of the case Gurtej Singh and Malkit Singh son of Gurdeep Singh r/o Deep Singh Wala sot Injured, out of the Injured Harminder Singh alias Babbu died at Civil Hospital Moga and Jasdeep Singh alias Bhola died at P.M. C. Ludhiana . Facts That Have Come To Fore During Investigation:- 1. Since injury was inflicted upon the left leg of Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, rod has been inserted in his left leg and since ankle of right leg. Being locked Narinderpal Singh Sidhu being unfit could not drive the vehicle. At the time of incident Narinderpal Singh Sidhu was found sitting on the front conductor seat in Pajero vehicle Number PB-10DZ-9597. This vehicle was found driven by Jasmel Singh alias Nikku S/o Harbans Singh R/d Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Moga . 2. At the spot since there was gathering of huge crowd some unknown impish aliments started vandalizing Bolero vehicle PB- 65-M-3724 of Narinderpal Singh Sidhu which was driven by Jaslovevreet Singh S/o Narinderpal Singh Sidhu and broken front and rear glass of the Bolero . 3. During this avulsion Narinderpal Singh Sidhu and his fellows Jasmel Singh alias Nikku sped away Pajero vehicle Number PB-10- DZ-9597. Jaslovepreet Singh Bolero vehicle PB-65-M-3724 and their rest of the fellows sped away their vehicles . 4. Since speeding away of the vehicle at high speeding Jasdeep Singh alias Bhola S/o Pritam Singh R/o Tarewala and Harminder Singh alias Babbu s/o Ujagar Singh R/o Shaheed Bhagat Singh Najjar Moga. complainant of the case Gurtej Singh and Malkit Singh S/o Gurpreet Singh R/o Deep Singh Wala. present at the spot, got injured. Out of the injured Harminder Singh alias Babbu died at Civil Hospital Moga and Jasdeep Singh alias Bhola died at D.M.C. Ludhiana . 5. The complainant of the case has recorded in his preliminary statement that due to regarding speeding away of vehicle his fellows got Injured. Whereas during Investigation on dated 12.02.2021 the complainant of the case has recorded in his supplementary statement that when they were inhibiting Narinderpal Singh Sidhu and his follows from doing hooliganism, Narinderpal Singh Sidhu said to his fellows that run over the vehicles upon them and kill them then some persons who were carrying baseballs, started hitting the complainant and his fellows with baseball. Arshdeep Singh alias Lali attacked Harminder Singh alias Babbu with baseball on the back of his head and sat in a vehicle by rushing there. All the accused persons with an intention to kill run over their respective vehicles upon the complainant and his fellows. In this regard it is joint opinion of Special investigation Team that on the one hand the complainant of the case is saying about running over the vehicles upon them whereas on the other hand is saving assault with baseball. At the time of incidence alighting from running vehicle and then sitting, in the vehicle by rushing by attacking with baseball is impossible. In concern of injuries inflicted by Harminder Singh medical opinion has been obtained. In concern of injuries suffered by Harminder Singh the Doctor has written that. "The injuries of Harminder Singh S/o Ujagar Singh wide PMR No.JK/01/21 Dt the possibility of injuries caused by fall cannot be ruled out" Circumstances of the investigation and according to the circumstances of the spot during investigation conducted by Special Investigation Team it has transpired from the facts that have come to fore that injuries suffered by Harminder Singh @ Babbu were not inflicted by anyone. Rather these injuries have been found inflicted due to hitting of fate of the vehicle and falling down . 6. Injuries have been inflicted to the complainant of the case and his fellows Jasdeep Singh alias Bhola son of Pritam Singh R/o Tarewala, Harminder Singh alias Babbu S/o Ujagar Singh R/o Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Moga and Malkit Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh R/o Deep Singh Wala, due to hitting of high speed vehicles and it has found that out of the injured death of Harminder Singh alias Babbu and Jasdeep Singh alias Bhola has taken place. 7. It has been found that Narinderpal Singh Sidhu was not driving Pajero vehicle himself. But due to the avulsion of the vehicles itself the drivers had sped away the vehicles. As a result of which Pajero Vehicle PB-10-DZ-9597, which has been found driven by Jasmel Singh alias Nikku and Bolero Vehicle PB-65-M-3724 which has been found driven by Jaslovepreet Singh, due to hitting of fate of these vehicles and vehicles came along with Narinderpal Singh Sidhu this incidence has found occurred. As a result of which Pajero Vehicle PB-10-DZ-9597, which has been found driven by Jasmel Singh alias Nikku and Bolero Vehicle PB-65-M-3724 which has been found driven by Jaslovepreet Singh, due to hitting of fate of these vehicles and vehicles came along with Narinderpal Singh Sidhu this incidence has found occurred. According to all the above mentioned facts during investigation conducted by Special Investigation Team it transpired that during the election campaign of Municipal Council Moga Elections Narinderpal Singh Sidhu upon asking by someone that Liquor is being distributed at Kacha Dusanjh Road Moga his opponent party (Complainant of the case). Narinderpal Singh Sidhu along with his fellows, had come to Kacha Dusanjh Road Moga where lot of crowd was gathered, out of the crowd someone started vandalizing glasses of the Bolero vehicle of fellow of Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, at the spot after vandalizing the Bolero vehicle Narinderpal Singh Sidhu and his fellows due to speeding away the vehicles this incidence has caused, therefore, in the present case instead of section 302 I.P.C. section 304 of I.P.C, is made out. 12. Though SIT report formed part of supplementary challan filed by the prosecution before the Trial Court but the same was also presented qua offences punishable under Section 302IPC read with Section120B IPC against same 5 accused. On 31.03.2022, the charges were framed. Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, the main accused, was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC along with Jaslovepreet Singh, accused No.7, for committing murder of Jasdeep Singh by running over him with their vehicles. Arshdeep Singh, accused No.5, was charged for committing murder of Harminder Singh by hitting base ball bat blow on his head. Accused Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, Jaslovepreet Singh, Arshdeep Singh and Titi Sharma, accused No.6, were charged for attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 IPC as well on the ground that with an intent to cause death they hit their vehicles to Gurtej Singh and Malkiat Singh. Other accused were also charged for offence punishable under Section 302IPC read with Section149 IPC. 13. Other accused were also charged for offence punishable under Section 302IPC read with Section149 IPC. 13. Narinderpal Singh Sidhu challenged the charge-sheet before this Court in CRR No.868 of 2022 which stands dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2023 observing as under:- " Applying the aforesaid ratio of law to the facts of the instant case, on a conjoint reading of the original report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-3) and SIT report (Annexure P-5) as well as the supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-7), the Trial Court was justified in arriving at a prima facie conclusion that there existed grounds to proceed against the accused and hence it rightly framed the charges under Sections 302, 307, 323, 188 148 and 149 of the IPC on the basis of the material produced before it. This Court finds no merit in the submissions made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any reasons recorded in the impugned order for framing charges under challenge, the impugned order deserved to be set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam and others : 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 370 has categorically and in explicit terms held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry, only prima facie case is to be seen and while framing charges under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to record detailed reasons. Further, in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal: 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 407, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "11. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stage in the trial..... " Still further, this Court fails to comprehend as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by framing of charges under Sections 302, 307, 323, 188 148 and 149 of the IPC as even the SIT in its report has not exonerated the accused but given an opinion that it was a case of falling within the ambit of Section 304 of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, if on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties during trial the Trial Court is satisfied that an offence under Section 304 of the IPC has been committed instead of offence under Section 302 of the IPC, the petitioner and the other accused in that eventuality would be convicted under Section 304 of the IPC, it being a cognate offence of Section 302 of the IPC, for which lesser punishment has been provided. Still further, in case on the basis of evidence adduced, the Trial Court arrives at a finding that no case at all is made out against the petitioner and other accused then they would be acquitted accordingly " 14. On 02.08.2021 i.e. after more than 6 months of the incident, Paramjit Kaur preferred complaint against Gurtej Singh and others qua offences punishable under Section 302 IPC, accusing them of having murdered Harminder Singh. The precise allegations levelled in the complaint read as under:- ".....3. At that time ASI Jaswant Singh Incharge Fokal point came to the spot alongwith other police officials and stopped the accused party from indulging in tommotions. At that time accused Gurtej Singh alongwith other accused persons started altercation with Narinderpal Singh Sidhu and his associates. The precise allegations levelled in the complaint read as under:- ".....3. At that time ASI Jaswant Singh Incharge Fokal point came to the spot alongwith other police officials and stopped the accused party from indulging in tommotions. At that time accused Gurtej Singh alongwith other accused persons started altercation with Narinderpal Singh Sidhu and his associates. Jaslovepreet Singh son of Varinder Pal Singh and Gurpreet Singh tried to stop them from such behaviour then Gurtej Singh on provocation loss his cool and gave a blow with his dang hitting on the head of Gurpreet Singh in the meantime Jasdeep Singh alias Bhola who is a Congress party worker and Harmander Singh alias Babbu whose house is situated in front of the place of occurrence were also present there and intervened in order to restore peace. Gurtej Singh accused with an intention to kill Jaslovepreet Singh tried to hit him but the dang blow landed on the head of Harmander Singh alias Babbu as Jaslovepreet Singh turned aside. As a result Harmander Singh fell on the ground. Thereafter the police party pleaded with both the groups to go home. When Narinder Pal Singh Sidhu and his associate were about to leave into their respective vehicles, the accused party and the supporters surrounded the vehicles of Narinder Pal Singh Sidhu and his supporters. All the accused raised lalkaras saying "Today Narinder Pal Singh Sidhu and his supporters will be spared and will be done to death All these accused and their supporters started breaking the window glass panes of their vehicles with the respective weapons with an intention to kill Narinder Pal Singh Sidhu and his associates. The accused were raising slogans they will not be spared and they will kill them. 4. The accused with the respective weapons had broken the widow glass panes of Bolero and Scorpio vehicle, complainant's husband and others speed up their vehicles in order to save their lives and there was a stampede at the spot. Jagdeep Singh alias Bhola who was standing there fell in low line place. Due to stampede some people passed over him and he suffered many injuries and later on he succumbed to his injuries. Jagdeep Singh alias Bhola who was standing there fell in low line place. Due to stampede some people passed over him and he suffered many injuries and later on he succumbed to his injuries. Harminder Singh after receiving a dang blow from Gurtej Singh on his head fell on the bonnet of one vehicle and later on fell down on the road and later on Harminder Singh also died at the spot. Thereafter Gurtej Singh tied half turban of Harminder Singh on his head after removing the same from the head of Harminder Singh and changed his outlook, due to the stampede Gurtej Singh and Malkeet Singh also received some minor injuries. If the complainant's husband and others did not escape with their vehicle from the spot the accused would have killed them " 15. JMIC, Moga vide impugned order dated 30.04.2022 has summoned Gurtej Singh and other petitioners in CRM-M No.20406 of 2022 to face trial. Gurtej Singh has been summoned to face trial under Sections 302, 307 & 323 IPC. 14 more persons have been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 427IPC, 148, 149 and 188 IPC. 16. The law regarding scope of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and the extent of interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. Section 204 of the Code as contained in Chapter XVI deals with commencement of proceedings before Magistrate. The same mandates that the Magistrate taking cognizance shall take steps for the issue of process only when in his opinion there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding'. The Magistrate before ordering issuance of process is required to look into the materials before him to see whether the same constitutes sufficient ground for issuance of process or not. Trite it is that initiation of prosecution is a serious matter and Magistrate is required to apply his mind as per law. 17. Reliance can be placed upon Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 , wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:- "....28. 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 is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. 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 is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.... " 18. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 , the Apex Court held that at the time of issuance of process the Magistrate not only has to form an opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the accused but he is also competent to consider whether there are inherent probabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant. Supreme Court held that:- ".....5. ... It is true that in coming to a decision as to whether a process should be issued the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations but there appears to be a very thin line of demarcation between a probability of conviction of the accused and establishment of a prima facie case against him. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him " 19. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others, (2015) 12 SCC 420 , the Apex Court after considering various pronouncements observed as under: - "....21. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him " 19. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others, (2015) 12 SCC 420 , the Apex Court after considering various pronouncements observed as under: - "....21. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter. 22. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that "a complaint of facts which constitute such offence". Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 190(1) (a) CrPC. The complaint is simply to be rejected. 23. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1) (a) CrPC followed by Section 204 CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment..... " 20. Same view has been reiterated by Supreme Court in Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Limited, (2022) 15 SCC 430 relying upon Pepsi Foods Limited's case (supra). 21. Coming to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is equally settled that in order to prevent abuse of process of law, wherever this Court finds that no offence is made out upon reading of complaint or where this Court finds that allowing the proceedings to continue shall amount to abuse of process of law, this Court shall quash the proceedings. 22. Following parameters have been laid down by Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. 22. Following parameters have been laid down by Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others, 1992 AIR (Supreme Court) 604 to illustrate the kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " 23. The aforesaid proposition of law laid down by Supreme Court in Ch. Bhajan Lai's case (supra) has further been reiterated by the Apex Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, AIR 1996 SC 309 ; Rajesh Bajaj v. Stale NCT of Delhi and others (1999) 3 SCC 259 ; State of Kerala and others v. O.C. Kuttan and others, 1999(2) SCC 651 ; P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, 1996(9) SCC 1 ; State of Orissa v. Bansidhar Singh, 1996(2) SCC 194 and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) 19 SCC 401 . 24. In the present case, after the FIR was registered the consistent stand taken by accused party of Narinderpal Singh Sidhu who is being led in the lis by his wife Paramjit Kaur is that the complainant party were trying to distribute liquor for votes illegally. The accused party tried to thwart the said attempt by the complainant/opponent in the election. The said efforts of the accused party were resisted by the mob consisting supporters of the complainant party present at the spot. The mob started vandalizing their vehicles. Feeling threatened, the accused party as a safety measure tried to run away by speeding their vehicles. This led to stampede and the consequential deaths. In fact, none was at fault. Paramjit Kaur was consistent in her stand in various representations filed by her including in an application filed under Section 173(8) of the Code before the Magistrate. Feeling threatened, the accused party as a safety measure tried to run away by speeding their vehicles. This led to stampede and the consequential deaths. In fact, none was at fault. Paramjit Kaur was consistent in her stand in various representations filed by her including in an application filed under Section 173(8) of the Code before the Magistrate. However, it is only after six months when she filed complaint that a novel version of Gurtej Singh hitting Harminder Singh with a wooden stick leading to his death dawned. Trial Court while issuing process against Gurtej Singh and others relied upon evidence of Paramjit Kaur, who appeared as CW1. Paramjit Kaur, as is evident from the record of the case, is not an eye witness to the occurrence. 25. From the record it is evident that Paramjit Kaur who was not even present at the spot. She herself in the complaint submits that at the time of occurrence she was at her house discussing election strategy and it is only there that the party learnt about distribution of liquor. Further as per the complaint, it is Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, Jaslovepreet Singh, Arshdeep Singh and Titi Sharma who went to the place where liquor was being served. At no point of time prior to filing of complaint the complainant Paramjit Kaur ever accused Gurtej Singh and others of having hit Harminder Singh. Rather her consistent stand in the written representations before the various authorities and in the application filed before the Magistrate seeking reinvestigation/further investigation was that the deaths occurred on account of stampede as Gurtej Singh and others tried to vandalized the vehicles of Narinderpal Singh Sidhu and others. While they tried to speed away on vehicles from the spot, there was stampede and in fact none was responsible for the deaths. Complaint has been filed after six months of the occurrence on the basis of allegations which were never revealed by any of the parties prior thereto. There is no mention of source of the said information. 26. The registration of FIR as well as report of SIT find duly mentioned in the complaint. However, the Trial Court, for the reasons best known, did not bother to call for the police report and has not even mentioned about the SIT report while issuing process against Gurtej Singh and others. 26. The registration of FIR as well as report of SIT find duly mentioned in the complaint. However, the Trial Court, for the reasons best known, did not bother to call for the police report and has not even mentioned about the SIT report while issuing process against Gurtej Singh and others. Impugned order dated 30.04.2022, thus, has been passed mechanically without any application of mind and without considering the evidence on record. The record suggests that the factum with respect to registration of FIR relating to same deaths was duly mentioned. However, the Trial Court has totally ignored the same. I may add here that complaint was filed on 02.08.2021 while further investigation in FIR case was in progress that too on request made by Paramjit Kaur. Yet Trial Court completely ignored mandate of Section 210 of the Code. Just to remind, enactment of Section 210 of the Code was intended only to ensure that private complaints do not interfere with course of justice. Present complaint is nothing but an innovative attempt to interfere in the course of justice by presenting entirely new version after 6 months of occurrence. The Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 2206 held that issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in ignorance Of police report sought for and made available would be unjust. Trial Court did not even bother to look into the FIR, police report or the SIT report. 27. This Court finds that the allegations levelled in the complaint do fall within the parameters as laid down by Supreme Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and call for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceedings. 28. In fact the version of Paramjit Kaur regarding stampede in the considered opinion of this Court, is defense of accused in the FIR case which is subject matter of trial in FIR case. 29. So far as the petition filed by Narinderpal Singh Sidhu seeking quashing of FIR is concerned, once his revision petition against framing of charge stands dismissed by this Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the same. 30. 29. So far as the petition filed by Narinderpal Singh Sidhu seeking quashing of FIR is concerned, once his revision petition against framing of charge stands dismissed by this Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the same. 30. As a sequel of discussion held herein above, this Court is satisfied that no offence is made out against petitioners in CRM-M No.20406 of 2022 and the continuation of proceeding will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 31. Consequently, the petition bearing CRM-M No.20406 of 2022 is allowed and impugned order summoning the petitioners is set aside qua them. Petition bearing CRM-M No.22131 of 2023 stands dismissed. 32. Needless to say, nothing recorded herein above should be construed as an expression on merits of the case. 33. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 34. Photocopy of this order be placed on file of the connected case.