Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Rakesh Rani v. State of Punjab - CRM-27447-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3778 (6 July 2006)

Crl.M. No. 27447-M of 2006

Smt. Rakesh Rani v. State of Punjab

* * *

Present: Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Baath, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.

* * *

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Jalandhar, whereby the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by respondent No.2 has been allowed and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the present petition be accepted as the impugned order is non speaking. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for summoning the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book as also the impugned order. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents but no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that after narrating the facts in brief the trial Court held as follows:- "Accordingly I am of the view that prima facie an offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is made out against the said Rakesh Rani. Accordingly application is allowed and Rakesh Rani be summoned for 20.1.2006." It is apparent that no reasons whatsoever are discernible from the impugned order. Courts while exercising powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are required to pass a reasoned order. A judicial order, must disclose the process of reasoning, the reasons assigned and the final conclusion. The impugned order merely discloses the final conclusion that led the Court to record a finding that the petitioner was required to stand trial with the already arraigned accused. No reasons in support of the order passed have been assigned. The impugned order does not satisfy the parameters of a judicial order, much less an order required to be passed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.

In view of the fact that the impugned order does not disclose any reason for summoning the petitioner, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, is set aside. However, the learned Magistrate would be at liberty to pass a fresh order on the merits on the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C by respondent No.2.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 14.8.2006.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

July 10, 2006 (RAJIVE BHALLA)



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.