The magistrate must conduct an inquiry to ensure that the allegations constitute an offence before summoning the accused, and summoning the accused should not be a tool for harassment.

Anil Kumar Srivastava-II,J.

1. Heard Sri B.P. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. Present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.8.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -Vth, Hardoi in Complaint Case No.4687 of 2010, thereby the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 323, 504, 406, 506 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act to face the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant, which was treated as complaint case. Statement of complainant was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses were recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order wherein not a single word has been mentioned about the prima facie satisfaction of the learned Magistrate for summoning the accused to face the trial.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.

5. It appears that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed, which was treated as a complaint case. Thereafter, statement of complainant Smt.Anisha Begam was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses- Afzaal, Ayoon Khan, Istekhar Ali and Bharat Singh were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has passed following order: -

       %hnd1%U;k;ky; vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVsV iape gjnksbZ

     Jherh vuh'k csxe cuke egcwc vkfn

fnukad 20-08-2010

i=koyh is'k gqbZ A vkt dh frfFk rych ds fcUnq ij cgl ds fy, fu;r gS A fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh }kjk mifLFkr gksdj ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k gS fd vc mUgsa dksbZ lk{; ugha nsuk gS A

vr% rych ds fcUnq ij lquk ,oa i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;k A

i=koyh ds ifj'khyu ls Li'V gS fd i=koyh ij ifjoknh dk /kkjk 200 n0 iz0 la0 dk c;ku ,oa pkj lkf{k;ksa ds /kkjk 202 n0 iz0 l0 ds c;ku rFkk ifjoknh dk 'kiFk ekStwn gS A lkf{k;ksa ds c;ku ,oa izdj.k ds voyksdu ls ifjoknh ds dFkkud dh HkyhHkkafr iqf"V gksrh gS A vr% vfHk;qDrksa dks ryc djus dk v/kkjk i;kZIr gS A

vkns'k

ifjoknh }kjk xokgku dh lwph nkf[ky djus ds mijkUr vfHk;qDrx.k egcwc] ykyw[k] vk;wc] ;kdwc] lyhe] Jherh crqYyk] etgch] gqluk o Jherh lyhe dks Hkk0 n0 fo0 dh /kkjk 323] 504] 406 o 506 o 4 ngst izfr0 vf/k0 ds varxZr ryc fd;k tkrk gS A fnukad 29-09-2010 dh frfFk fu;r dj vfHk;qDrksa ds fo: ) lEeu tkjh gksa ifjoknh vko';d iSjoh vanj lIrkg djs A

,0 lh0 ts0 ,e0

gjnksbZ %hnd2%

6. In the case of Sonu Gupta versus Deepak Gupta (2015) Vol.3 SCC 424, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that : -

"At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. (Para 8) "

7. In a recent judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court on 14.12.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.1225 of 2016 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9318 of 2012) Abhijit Pawar vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalakar & Anr. It was held that the admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was amended in the year by the Code of Criminal Procedure(Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 22nd June, 2006 by adding the words that ''and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction'. There is a vital purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false compla