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 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 the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize 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.”

In ruling Paul George v. State, 2002 Cri LJ 996; Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under :

“We feel that whatever be the outcome of the pleas raised by the appellant on merit, the order disposing of the matter must indicate application of mind to the case and some reasons be assigned for negating or accepting such pleas............

It is true that it may depend upon the nature of the matter which is being dealt with by the Court and the nature of the jurisdiction being exercised as to in what manner the reasons may be recorded e.g. in an order of affirmance detailed reasons or discussion may not be necessary but some brief indication by the application of mind may be traceable to affirm an order would certainly be required. Mere ritual of repeating the words or language used in the provisions, saying that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error is found in the judgment under challenge without even a whisper of the merits of the matter or nature of pleas raised does not meet the requirement of decision of a case judicially.”

In ruling Chhaya William (Smt.) and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2003 (47) ACC 1017; this Court had held as under :

“I have carefully gone through the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court. No doubt on one hand the enquiry conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. does not need to be detailed enquiry or scrutiny of evidence to that extent which is required for the purposes of the trial or conviction, but at the same time, the Court has not to sit as a silent spectator. It must apply its mind while passing order for the issue of summonses under Section 204(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

6. As held by in above rulings the passing of order of summoning any person as accused is a very important matter, which initiates criminal proceeding against him. Such orders cannot be passed summarily