The truthfulness of allegations and establishment of guilt should be decided by the trial court, and irregularities in summoning orders may not be sufficient to quash proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet and summoning order dated 9-6-1995 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur and the entire proceeding of Case No. 1150 of 1995 (Crime No. 168 of 1994), State of U. P. v. Udai Pal Singh under Section 498-A I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. , P. S. Binwar, district Hamirpur.

( 2 ) IT appears that Smt. Poonam Singh opposite party No. 2 lodged a report on 26-7-1994 at P. S. Binwar, district Hamirpur against the applicants under Section 498-A, I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act with the allegation that she was married with Balwant Singh applicant No. 3 according to Hindu Rites in the year 1991. When she started residing with the applicants they started demanding dowry and treating her with cruelty. Ultimately she was rescued by the police from the confinement of the applicants on 27-6-1994. On the above report the police registered a case a crime No. 68 of 1994 and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the applicants under Section 498-A, I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

( 3 ) ON the basis of charge sheet learned Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the applicants vide order dated 9-8-1995. The above summoning order, the charge sheet and the proceeding arising out of it has been sought to be quashed in this proceeding.

( 4 ) HEARD Sri V. S. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri U. C. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A. G. A.

( 5 ) THE first contention of learned counsel for the applicants was that the summoning order is not a speaking order and it is liable to be quashed. In this regard he also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1518 of 1999. Hari Dayal v. State of U. P. decided by Honble Bhagwan Din, J. on 24-5-1999 and Hazi Shafi v. State of U. P. , 1999 (1) JIC 163, Allahabad.

( 6 ) IN the above case laws it was held by learned single Judge of this Court that Criminal Court is required to make speaking order while summoning the accused persons for trial. Speaking order does not mean the critical order, touching all the aspects of the case and also the defence version, if set out at that very stage, but to examine the material made available by the Investigating Officer along with the charge-sheet and satisfy himself, if the material evidence as such unchallenged is sufficient to prima facie make out the case against the accused persons.

( 7 ) IT was further pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants that learned Magistrate while passing summoning order has simply mentioned that the case be registered and accused be summoned and he has not taken proper cognizance by a speaking order.

( 8 ) SECTION 204, Cr. P. C. which deals with issue of process says that if in the opinion of Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may issue summons or warrant as the case may be.

( 9 ) HOWEVER, for arriving on opinion for taking cognizance it is necessary that there should be sufficient ground for proceeding. The above section does not require that reason should be briefly recorded as it is required for rejecting a complaint under Section 203, Cr. P. C. If the Magistrate had ordered issuance of summons it means that he was of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with. Moreover, the cognizance in this case was taken on police report and the material on the basis of which the accused were challaned was before the Magistrate. It was not shown before this Court that there were not sufficient material for the Magistrate to proceed with the case. Therefore, there appears no illegality in the summoning order.

( 10 ) ANALOGOUS to the provision of Section 204, there is provision of Section 204 Cr. P. C. which deals with the procedure and requirement of framing charge against the accused person and says that if, upon such consideration, examian