High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 11 SHI CK 0410

Sukhpreet Singh and Others vs Bhim Singh Mankotia and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 12 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surjit Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
CRMMO No. 215 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 335 words

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

2.

A criminal complaint has been instituted against the present Petitioners and the proforma-Respondents by Respondent No. 1 Bhim Singh, alleging that the Petitioners and the proforma-Respondents are threatening him to sell his share, in some joint property, in their favour. Learned Judicial Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, has passed the impugned order, for summoning the Petitioners and the proforma-Respondents.

3.

Grievance of the Petitioners is that a civil litigation is going on, in a Court in Punjab, for partition of the shares of the Petitioners in some joint property, in which Respondent No. 1 Bhim Singh is also a co-sharer and that since civil proceedings are going on, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or allowed to continue.Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

4.

Submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is misconceived. Allegation in the private complaint, filed by Respondent No. 1, has no relevance with the suit for partition. His allegation is that he is being pressurized and intimidated to sell his share in the joint property, partition of which has been sought in the suit instituted in a Court in Punjab. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

5.

I notice from the impugned order that the learned Judicial Magistrate has observed that prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners and the proformaRespondents.At the stage of summoning the accused, u/s 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding cannot be recorded that a prima facie case is there. Only satisfaction is required to be recorded that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against an accused. With regard to the existence of a prima facie case, order is required to be passed only at the stage of consideration of the point, whether charge should be framed or not and such an order is passed, after hearing both the sides. Learned Judicial Magistrate may keep in mind this observation, in future.

Petition stands disposed of.