Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 23.12.2004 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned.

2. Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi is without application of mind because of the fact that neither averments were made against the petitioner in the complaint nor any evidence produced against him.

3. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the complaint being filed by respondent No.2 vide complaint case No.136/11 wherein the petitioner has been impleaded as respondent/ accused No.11.

4. Learned counsel has submitted that respondent No.2 in para No.11 of the complaint does not contain any allegation against the petitioner and same reads as under:-

“11. That the main social networking websites are Google, Facebook, Youtube, Orkut, Broadreader, Mylot, Zomei Time, Shyni Blog, Blogspot, Exbii.com, IMC India. These accused persons knowingly well these facts that these contents and materials are most dangerous for the community and peace