The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prima facie evidence and the need for the magistrate to apply judicious mind in summoning an accused in a criminal case.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer is made by the petitioner to quash order dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure P6) passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby his revision petition was dismissed against the order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P4) by ld. JMIC, Hodal, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents to prosecute them under Sections 147, 323, 389 & 506/34 IPC.

2. Perusal of the paper-book reveals that complaint (Annexure P3) was filed by the petitioner to prosecute the respondents by stating that he (petitioner) was posted as Pharmacist in Government Hospital, Hodal wherein the respondents are working as Doctors. It was alleged that accused had lodged a false and frivolous FIR bearing No.342 dated 01.07.2014 under Sections 147, 149, 186, 323, 332 & 353 IPC against him (petitioner) at Police Station, Hodal, though petitioner did not have any link with the allegations. It was alleged further that in fact the two accused/respondents used to harass the petitioner and the entire staff in one way or the other. All the staff members were under tremendous pressure and almost all of them had levelled large scale allegations against the respondents-accused, but no action has been taken. It was further alleged in the complaint that on the date of occurrence, respondents had attacked him (complainant-petitioner) and had threatened to falsely implicate him with accusations of sexual assault and the whole incident was recorded in CCTV. Matter was reported to the police, but instead of taking action against the respondents, complainant was falsely implicated. Complainant-petitioner also referred about the various complaints made against the respondents by other staff members from time to time and prayed for summoning and prosecution of the accused.

3. After recording preliminary evidence, ld. JMIC, Hodal vide order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P4) dismissed the complaint. Revision filed by the petitioner against the said order was met with the same fate of dismissal vide order dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure P6) passed by ld. ASJ, Palwal. Against these orders, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. (i) It is contended by ld. counsel that at the stage of summoning, Court is required only to see the prima facie material and that evidence on record is not to be scrutinized in such manner as to whether the same would ultimately lead to conviction or not.

(ii) Ld. counsel has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and others, 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 466, wherein it was held that where there are prima facie evidence, Magistrate is bound to issue process and even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter has to be left to be decided by an appropriate forum at an appropriate stage.

6. On the same proposition, reliance is also placed on a decision of this Court rendered in CR-1669-2011 titled as Sher Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 10.10.2014.

7. I have considered submissions of ld. counsel for the petitioner and have appraised the record.

8. It is no doubt true that at the stage of summoning, Magistrate is required only to see prima facie evidence brought on record. At the same time, it is to be kept in mind that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Magistrate is required to apply its judicious mind in order to record his satisfaction that there is a prima facie case against the accused on the basis of allegations made in the complaint supported by the admissible material. Ld. trial Court as well as ld. revisional Court have rightly referred to GHCL, Employee Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 505 and Pepsi Food Ltd. Vs. Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1998 SCC (Criminal)1400 in this regard.

9. In the case of Pepsi Food Ltd.(Supra), it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: -

“Summoning of an accused in a cri