Kiran Anand Lall, J.@mdashThis petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for the quashing of
complaint filed by Surinder Pal Moudgill respondent against them, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Annexure P1, and the order dated
10.04.2004, Annexure P19, vide which they were summoned, as accused, by the Court.
2. The trial Court has only ordered summoning of the petitioners, as accused, in the complaint. It is, therefore, open to them to plead before the
Magistrate that the process against them ought not to have been issued and this right flows to them from the provision contained in Section 245 (2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under :-
245. When accused shall be discharged.
(1).................
(2) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons
to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.
3. If any authority is needed on the point, reference may be made to K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and another, , in which it was held that
the order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has also been issued is
no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused"".
4. In the light of what has been discussed above, it is held that it is not a fit case calling for quashing of complaint and the summoning order, in the
exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, it is clarified that the petitioners will be within their rights to take up all
the pleas available to them, before the trial Court, at appropriate stage.
5. Dismissed.
