AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.B. Garg, J.
A letter was allegedly addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra (Annexure R1) purported to have been written by the present accused on 1031990 alleging that Smt. Urmila Chaudhary, Excise and Taxation Officer, Kurukshetra was a corrupt officer and was collecting illegal gratifications. In the end, in this application it was desired that Smt. Urmila Chaudhary, may be transferred from Kurukshetra. A further similar complaint but more detailed was made on 2031990. The Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, entrusted these complaints to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra who made an inquiry and arrived at a conclusion that Smt. Urmila Chaudhary was an officer of integrity and the complaints against her have been made because she conducted raids on the premises of several persons and also imposed penalties and he desired that the complaint being false, the complainant should be proceeded against.
The Deputy Commissioner, thereafter, instituted a complaint under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against N. K. Singla alias N.K. Gupta of Venus Electrical, Krishna Dham, Kurukshetra.
When the complainant Deputy Commissioner, appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kurukshetra, in this complaint, the summoning order passed reads as under :
"Accused be summoned for 2871991".
The aforesaid order has been challenged here mainly on the plea that it is not a speaking one and the application of the mind of the court was all the more essential because, here in para 5 of this petition there is a plea that this accused was not the person who allegedly wrote the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner because he is Neel Kanth Gupta and not N. K. Singla. Besides this, another contention raised is that he has never been a member of the Kurukshetra Bharastachar Nirodhak Samiyi, Kurukshetra, or any of its officebearers as mention in Annexure R1 and O2. On behalf of the petitioner, attention has been invited to Lachman Dass v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 297 : 1985(2) C.L.R. 120, wherein, it was observed that the grounds for summoning an accused should exfacie, appear in the order. Obviously, the impugned short order dated 2171990 is cryptic. It does not show that the Court applied its mind to the allegations made in the complaint. The conclusion is that the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is partly accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The complainant shall appear in the trial court at Kurukshetra on 1981991 and the trial court shall proceed in the case in accordance with law. Any authority to the contrary has not been referred to here on behalf of the State.
This also disposes of Criminal Misc. No. 12545M of 1990, Rishi Pal v. State of Haryana.