The complainant is stated to have died. However, learned counsel has filed his Power of Attorney on behalf of the son of the deceased person.
2 The deceased Respondent No, 1 has filed a complaint (annex-G/1) u/S. 380, 454, 392 PPC against one Saif-ur-Rehman. Learned Respondent No, 2 recorded the preliminary evidence and summoned the said accused person. The petitioner feels aggrieved of order dated 25.10.2005, whereby the learned Magistrate has proceeded to summon the petitioner.
3. Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that neither the petitioner finds any mention in the complaint nor in the preliminary evidence and there is nothing in the impugned order as to why the petitioner has been summoned. Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate, on the other hand, has tried to argue that the petitioner is one of the 13 unknown persons mentioned in the complaint.
4. I have examined the complaint as also the statement of the deceased complainant. I find that the only accusation against 12/13 persons is that they came to the gate of the factory and asked the chowkidar Muhammad Amin to open the lock, who refused to do so and told them that he will open the lock only upon the arrival of the owners of the factory. There is no other allegation whatsoever against the said 12/13 persons. The remaining allegations are only against Saif-ur- Rehman, the person against whom the complaint has been filed.
5. Now u/S. 204 Cr.P.C. a Court has to satisfy itself that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding before it shall issue summons for the attendance of an accused. To my mind, neither is there any ground disclosed in the impugned order for summoning the petitioner nor is one made out on the basis of the available material on record. The W.P. accordingly is allowed and the impugned order to the extent of summoning the petitioner in the complaint case by Respondent NO. 2 is declared to be without lawful authority and is set-aside.