1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner calls in question the order of the trial court taking cognizance against him and issuing summons.

2. The factual matrix which has given rise to the order taking cognizance, briefly stated, are that, a complaint was lodged by one Narayana Reddy, who is R-2 herein, with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Toranagal Police Station, alleging that on 31.8.2006, at about 6.00 a.m., Ramachandra Reddy and Janardhan Reddy, their Manager Laxmiprasad and Kumar Reddy, all entered the mining area of the complainant and removed the boundary stones and had put up cement pillars. In this connection, on 31.8.2006 at around 12.0 noon, Ramachandra Reddy, the present petitioner, spoke over the mobile to the complainant and requested him to see that no obstacle is put to the work that was being carried on by the aforementioned manager and other staff and otherwise, the result would be serious. Later on, Janardhan Reddy also spoke over the mobile phone and informed the complainant that the matter could be resolved by talking to each other across the table.

3. Stating all these in the complaint, the complainant requested the Sub-Inspector of Police to give protection to him, his family and staff and ensure that no danger to reputation and life or property takes place. This complaint led to a case being registered in Crime No. 118/2006 in respect of the offences punishable under Section 143,447,434 and 506 read with 149 of the I.P.C.

4. On completion of the investigation, the P.S.I., Toranagal, filed charge sheet and the trial court took cognizance and ordered a case to be registered and issued summons to A-1 to A-4. It is this order of the trial court taking cognizance and issuing summons that is assailed in this petition by A-1.

5. Learned senior counsel Shri C.V. Nagesh for the petitioner prefaced his argument by submitting that the basic attack is in respect of the procedure followed by the trial court in taking cognizance and issuing summons to the petitioner and, therefore, he would confine his arguments only to this basic aspect of the matter and if need be, he would also make submissions on the merits of the case.

6. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that a plain look at the order sheet of the trial court dated 24.6.2008 will make it clear that, except affixing his signature to the typed portion, the entries are all made by the ministerial staff and even the order indicating taking of cognizance and registering of the case and issuing summons is also typed one and, as such, it is very apparent that the learned trial judge did not apply his mind before taking cognizance and apart from the aforesaid features, in the order sheet dated 24.6.2008, the fact that there is also the short signature of the ministerial staff below the words “JMFC, Sandur.” and it indicates that the entire order sheet was put up by the ministerial staff and all that the learned trial judge did was to affix his signature to the said order. Moreover, the order sheet also reveals that, on the left side it is written “No charge sheet copy & sign on C/S”. It is, therefore, contended that the trial court did not take cognizance and the procedure laid down in regard to taking cognizance by the Apex Court and also by this court has not been followed.

7. The further defect pointed out is that, there is no indication in the order taking cognizance as to in respect of which of the offence the cognizance is taken and this is also an aspect which would go to indicate total lack of application of mind on the part of the learned trial Judge. Therefore, the learned senior counsel argued that the very procedure adopted by the trial court in taking cognizance and issuing summons is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this court and in this connection, he referred to the decisions reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka 4773, ILR 2001 Karnataka 1984, ILR 1993 Karnataka 651 and