Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—This revision has been filed against the order dated 19.2.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar in criminal Complaint Case No. 19/9 of 2005, Rajiv Kumar v. Rajendra Singh and others, by which revisionist was summoned for offences under Sections 420, 504, 506, 406 IPC.

2. Heard arguments of counsel for the revisionist and A.G.A. and perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that learned Magistrate had not considered evidence on record and passed erroneous order which should be quashed. Learned A.G.A. had contended that impugned order had been passed on the basis of evidences adduced before trial Court and there is no illegality in it, therefore revision should be dismissed.

4. I have considered rival contentions and gone through the records of the case, and related law and rulings.

5. In ruling M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 UPCrR 118; Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under :

“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 c