Zubair Ahmed vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Background
Homebuyers who had booked a flat in a Gurugram project complained of delayed construction and unfulfilled refund promises, leading to an FIR against the developer company and its officials. The petitioner, a former non-executive director who had resigned years before the dispute arose, was never named in the original complaint, and the police chargesheet itself found no evidence against him: yet the trial court still summoned him based largely on the complainant's own allegations.
Decision Breakdown
The High Court held that a magistrate can disagree with the police and summon someone the investigation cleared, but must then give independent reasons grounded in actual material, not simply reproduce the complainant's version as if it were part of the chargesheet. Since the summoning order did that here, it was set aside only as to this petitioner, with the matter remitted to the trial court to reconsider afresh with proper reasoning; the case against the other accused continues unaffected.
Lesson Learnt
A magistrate's power to summon someone the police chose not to prosecute is real but not unlimited: the order must show independent application of mind to actual evidence, not just repeat a complainant's claims.