1. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 596 of 2015, Akbar Ali Vs. Adil and others, police station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh and the summoning order dated 27.6.2016 of cognizance passed in it by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Azamgarh for offences under sections 323 and 504 IPC against four accused including present applicant.

2. The complaint case no. 3029 of 2014 (New No. 596 of 2015) was filed by present opposite party no. 2 Akbar Ali against four persons. In alleged act proposed accused committed offence on 31.7.2014 at about 8:00 a.m. when accused persons have allegedly trespassed the house of complainant, hurled abuses, threatened and caused injuries by fist, kicks, clubs and sticks.

3. Complainant had examined himself under section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C, on the basis of which the trial court had passed summoning order dated 27.6.2016 by which all the four accused named on complaint were summoned for offence under section323, 504 IPC. The proceedings of said complaint case alongwith said order of cognizance is under challenge in present proceeding.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that impugned order of cognizance had been passed after concealment of pertinent facts in mala fide way, in clouding the status of accused no.-1 of being judicial officer. He further submitted that impugned order of cognizance is non-speaking and had been passed without application of mind, so proceeding of case on basis of such order is liable to be quashed. He contended that from concealment of relevant facts deliberately directions of Apex Court cannot be complied. Had these facts been in knowledge of trial court, there was no possibility of passing of such order.

5. These contentions were opposed by learned AGA who submitted that although impugned summoning order is non-speaking and cryptic but on merits there is no error in it.

6. In ruling "M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others, 1998 UPCrR 118" Hon'ble Supreme Court held :-

"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."

7. In "Paul George vs. State, 2002 Cri.L.J. 996" Hon'ble Supreme Court held :-

"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