A Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing process under S. 204 CrPC, as long as the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and formed a judicial opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition invoking the inherent powers of this court under S. 482 of the Cr. P. C. as well as supervisory powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and wants to quash the process issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Simla under Ss. 380, 420, 448, 500 and 501 I. P. C. before more than three years from now. i. e. on 9th July, 1975, and the subsequent proceedings which have taken place in the court of the learned Magistrate pursuant to the issue of that process.

2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Smt. Satya filed a complaint against the present petitioner making certain allegations to show that the petitioner played fraud and deceit on her with the result that she was induced to surrender her body to the petitioner for a number of months and ultimately she also conceived and committed abortion at the instance of the petitioner. She has further alleged that though the petitioner had performed a Gandharv style of marriage with her and had promised to perform a regular marriage subsequently, the petitioner backed out and cheated her. It is further alleged that on a certain day the petitioner took away the letters which were in her possession addressed to her by the petitioner himself. On these and other allegations, the respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint for the alleged offences under Ss. 380, 420, 448, 500 and 501 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate before whom this complaint was filed examined one witness and some documents produced by the petitioner and then passed the following order as regards the process: "One P. W. recorded. I am of the view that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Ss. 380, 420, 448, 500 and 501 I. P. C. Let summons issue to the accused for 1-8-75".

3. It appears that thereafter the case lingered on without any evidence being recorded. From the process which is issued by the learned Magistrate it appears that the trial was expected to be a warrant trial wherein evidence would be first recorded and then the Magistrate would be expected to come to a conclusion whether charge should be framed or not. That stage has not still arrived. I am informed at the Bar that 3rd June 1978 was the last date before the court of the learned Magistrate for recording evidence. On that day, one of the witnesses of the prosecution was absent though served and, therefore, warrant to procure his appearance was issued and the case was adjourned to 18-8-1978 In the meanwhile, the present petition was filed on 17-7-1978 and stay of the proceedings before the court of the learned Magistrate was obtained by the present petitioner on 18th July, 1978, with the result that on 16-8-1978 the learned Magistrate could not proceed further in the case.

4. The petitioner has now approached this Court by this petition raising three grounds, namely, (1) that the complaint which is filed by the first respondent does not disclose any offence even if the facts stated therein are proved and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in issuing any process and taking subsequent steps pursuant thereto; (2) the learned Magistrate has committed an error in issuing the process under S. 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code without appreciating the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence offered by the respondent before the process was issued. It was contended that the order issuing process which is quoted above does not contain any reasons and, therefore, the same is vitiated. In other words, according to the petitioner, this order ought to have been a speaking order as held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in some cases; and (3) the dispute between the parties is essentially civil and in view of the fact that a civil suit is pending between the parties this complaint cannot proceed further and this Court should interfere in exercise of its inherent powers under S. 482 of the Cr. P. C.

5. Shri Sud who appeared on behalf of the firs