1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. Heard forthwith by consent.

4. The petitioner appearing in-person, submits that the impugned order is illegal for the reason that it is well settled law that while issuing process, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and decide if any prima facie case is made out or not, though it is not necessary for the Magistrate to write a detailed order. He submits that a short order giving a summary of the reasons is enough in such a case and this is exactly what the learned Magistrate has done in the present case. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 7.11.2014, though a one paragraph order discloses that the process has been issued by the Magistrate only after application of his mind as he has considered not only allegations made in the complaint, but also all the documents and various orders of the Court which gave support the allegations.

5. Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 however, disagrees. He submits that a bare perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate would be sufficient to show that how it has been passed without any judicial application of mind to the facts alleged in the complaint and other documents filed along with the complaint. He submits that there is no dispute about the proposition of law that a detailed order while issuing process is not required. He further submits that the settled position of law is that the order must reflect application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts of the case and his satisfaction, at least for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint about the prima facie case made out in that regard.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 submits that an appropriate order in the matter be passed.

7. Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in support of his submission has relied upon following cases :

(i) Anil Kumar and others vs. M.K. Aiyappa and another, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705.

(ii) S.R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 609.

(iii) Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609.

(iv) Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another, reported in (1964) 1 SCR 639.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following cases :

(i) Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta and others, Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos.285 – 287 of 2015, on 11th February, 2015.

(ii) Bhushan Kumar and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No.612/2012, on 4th April, 2012.

(iii) Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports vs. Roshanlal Agarwal and others, Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Cri.) 1656-1663 of 1995, on 5th March, 2003.

(iv) UP Pollution Control Board vs. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. And others, Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Cri.)3978 of 1999, on 27th March, 2000.

(v) Kanti Bhadra Shah and another vs. State of West Bengal, Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Cri.) 5 of 2000 on 5th January, 2000.

8. The afore stated cases settle the legal position in the matter. According to it, a Magistrate holding the preliminary inquiry has to be satisfied by applying a judicial mind that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and that it is not necessary for the Magistrate to pass a detailed order. Examining the order passed by the learned Magistrate on these parameters, I find that the Magistrate has mechanically passed the order dated 7.11.2014 whereby he issued process against the respondent No.1. At this stage, there is no reason for me to express any opinion about the issuance of process by the Magistrate against the remaining accused, as they have not been made parties to this proceeding.

9. The non-application of the mind is visible from the fact that the process has