A Magistrate must provide clear reasoning and apply mind to the facts before summoning an accused, as criminal proceedings cannot commence as a matter of course.

JUDGMENT :

AMBUJ NATH, J.

Heard the parties

2. Petitioners have filed this application for quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 396 of 2014 including cognizance order dated 20.12.2018 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur in which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 451, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C.

3. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur has passed the order dated 20.12.2018 in a very cryptic manner. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in M/s. JM Laboratories and Others versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Another as reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 208] in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under:-

8. In the Judgment and order of even date in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled “INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh”, we have observed thus:

“33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons.

34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v.Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra):

“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 complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused.

36. The said law would be consistently following by this Court in am catena of judgments including in the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 435.

37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra 20