( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the legality of the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the petitioner on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 420 and 120-B, of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated hereinunder. Respondent no. l filed a complaint under Sections 420 and 120-B, against the petitioners in December, 1992. In the complaint, it is incorporated that the complainant had been in search of a match for his daughter Ms. Poonam. The complainant came across the matrimonial advertisement in Hindustan Times daily (English) dated 26th March, 1989. In pursuance of that advertisement, negotiations were carried on. Accused no. 3, the father of the boy sent a reply. The advertisement showed that the boy was a divorcee. There was no mention of any child from the first marriage. The advertisement is reproduced as under :-

"news ITEM (HINDUSTAN TIMES DATED 26. 3. 1989) PUNJABI Brahmin, 30/170/5,500, legally divorced boy looking for suitable beautiful girl. Apply immediately with full details. No caste. Simply marriage. Box 119437/ca, Hindustan Times, New Delhi- 110001. "

( 3 ) THE bio-data of. accused no. 5, was sent by his father, accused no. 3 to the complainant. The complainant suggested to accused persons to visit the house of the complainant for further negotiations. According to the complainant, accused No. 3 and 4 visited the house of the complainant in the last week of April, 1989 and they saw the girl and showed papers of earlier decree of divorce of the boy to the complainant. The papers did not have any reference to any child from the first marriage. The main grievance of the complainant is that Sanjeev Tandon, accused no. 5 and other accused withheld this vital fact that there was a child from the first marriage. Because of withholding of this information, the complainant was cheated. The accused are guilty of concealing this fact knowing fully well that there Was a child from the earlier marriage, who was studying at Delhi. According to the complainant, they all intentionally concealed this fact to cheat the complainant and spoil the life of his daughter. All of them are conspirators to the cheating.

( 4 ) IT is also mentioned in the complaint that on 5th August, 1994, one Ms. Rashmi came to the house of the daughter of the complainant at Ludhiana and told her that she was the first wife of Shri Sanjeev Tandon and that they had a son and she had come to see her husband as he had not turned up for the last three/four days to her house. She further disclosed that Sanjeev Tandon was still meeting her and even living with her. Thereafter, the daughter of the complainant was able to connect why her husband used to go out on the pretext of business. It was a big shock to the complainant s daughter. On enquiry from the accused, they did not disclose about the birth of the boy out of the first marriage.

( 5 ) THE present order of summoning has been challenged by accused nos. 1 to 4 in the complaint. Except Sanjeev Tandon, all other accused have preferred TO this petition on the ground that the order of summoning the petitioners was casual, perfunctory and has been passed in a mechanical manner without any application of mind.

( 6 ) IT is also submitted that criminal prosecution is not to be used for harassment. It is also submitted that the Metropolitan Magistrate before issuing summons has to examine the material to ascertain the existence of the basic ingredients of the offence charged and to the applicability of the facts with regard to each individual.

( 7 ) IT is mentioned that there is an unexplained delay in lodging complaint of almost three and a half years after the complainant s daughter gained knowledge of the alleged concealment of the fact of birth of the child from the former marriage of Sanjeev Tandon. Besides, such a fact