The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper application of mind by the court at the stage of summoning in a criminal case, as highlighted by the Supreme Court's decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others and Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,-VII, Muzaffarpur in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.66 of 2016 dated 24.05.2016 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P. Act’).

3. The petitioners were made named accused in Mahila P.S. Case No.66 of 2016 dated 24.05.2016 registered under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. On completion of investigation, the police found the allegations to be true and submitted charge-sheet against them. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under which charge-sheet was submitted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order has been passed mechanically by filling up certain blanks in the pre-printed format. He submitted that even without there being any specific allegation against the petitioners, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned them to face trial for the offences alleged. He contended that summoning an accused in criminal case is a serious matter and, thus, need for proper application of mind by the court at the stage of summoning has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that though the order has been passed by the learned Magistrate by filling up blanks in the pre-printed format, the same cannot be held to be illegal. He submitted that the FIR contains ingredients of the offences alleged and, in course of investigation, the allegations made have been found true and, therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the offences and summoned the petitioners.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The order impugned reads as under:-

“The I.O. has submitted charge sheet u/s 498(A) I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act against accused persons as noted in column no.11 of charge sheet.

Perused the F.I.R., Charge Sheet, Case Diary and record from which it appears that a prima-facie case make out against the accused persons as noted in column.-11 of the C.S. for the above said offences.

Accordingly cognizance has been taken u/s 498(A) I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act against the accused persons as noted in column no.11 of charge sheet. Present case is kept in personal file for disposal.

Office to issue summon against the accused persons for their appearance and facing trial.

22/12/2016 for appearance.” (underlining mine)

8. Let it be noted that except the underlined portion in the impugned order all the contents are pre-printed. An order by filling up only Sections and the date mentioned in the charge-sheet by the police in format pre-prepared for the purpose is impermissible in law. The manner in which the order has been passed is somewhat disturbing. More so, in a case involving cognizance offence. The learned Magistrate has not even bothered to record the names of persons summoned to face trial in the impugned order.

9. The need for proper application of mind by the court at the stage of summoning has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (supra) in paragraph 28 as under:

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the