Summoning order only after careful scrutiny of complaint:Court

Summoning a person to face criminal trial affects the fundamental right to liberty and the court should "carefully" scrutinise the complaint and other material on record before passing such an order, a Delhi court has observed.
Upholding the summoning order by a metropolitan magistrate, special CBI Judge Kanwal Jeet Arora said that the scope of the court in its revisional jurisdiction was limited and was required to be exercised only if it was found that some injustice has resulted due to the order passed by magisterial court.
"Summoning anyone to face a criminal trial does affect one's liberty which has been considered as the most fundamental right of an individual and is enshrined as such, in the Constitution of India.

"To protect and safeguard the most basic of all the fundamental rights, the trial court is under an obligation to carefully scrutinise the complaint and other material on record, ie. Testimony of the witnesses examined on oath during pre-summoning evidence by the complainant in support of his complaint, and to apply its judicial mind before passing the summoning order," the judge said.
The court made the observation while hearing a revision petition filed by Delhi residents Satpal, Suraj, Kuldeep and Sarvan challenging the April 2, 2014 order of a metropolitan magistrate summoning them to face trial in a criminal complaint case filed by one Pratima Dass.

Petitioners had alleged that the complaint has been filed by Dass just to create pressure on them so that they should not demand any rent from the woman, who was residing as a tenant on their property, and the trial court had failed to take into consideration various other aspects in the case.

The court upheld the summoning order of the magisterial court saying there was no infirmity in it.
"In view of the facts alleged in the complaint and those deposed by the complainant in her pre-summoning evidence, I do not find any infirmity in the summoning order passed by metropolitan magistrate," the judge said adding that the revision petition stands dismissed.

"The contentions advanced by petitioners involve certain disputed questions of facts. Neither these facts nor these contentions were raised before trial court at the time of passing of summoning order, as at that point of time it only had the complaint of the complainant and her pre-summoning evidence before it on the basis of which the impugned order was passed," the court said.