The judgment emphasizes the necessity of establishing essential elements of an offense and the requirement for a Magistrate to conduct a proper inquiry before issuing process against accused residing beyond their jurisdiction.

ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA II, J.

1. Heard Sri G.S.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. Opposite party No. 2 is represented through counsel but none is present on his behalf, although counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.

3. The instant petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 449 of 2007, Deepak Srivastava v. Sunil Bharti Mittal and others under section 420/406 Indian Pena Code (In short 'IPC'), Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 36, Lucknow and the impugned orders dated 13.08.2007 and 16.1.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the accused petitioners to face the trial under section 420 IPC.

4. A complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2 against the petitioners stating that the petitioners are connected and working for each other in Airtel Company and are responsible for the business, affairs and policies of the company. The petitioner No. 1 is Chairman/Managing Director of the Airtel Company and is responsible for all the affairs and business including policies of the Company. Petitioners have floated a scheme that if any individual purchases Airtel connection under the scheme, he shall be entitled for the Air Ticket to and fro to any destination mentioned in the scheme. Opposite party No. 2 on the advertisement and allurement of the petitioners purchased three connection Nos. 9935521244, 9935502146 and 9935502145 in the name of Deepak Srivastava i.e. complainant, Meenu Srivastava and Soumya Srivastava, respectively. It was the pre condition of the scheme that the purchaser must continue the connection for three months and pay the charges in time. Opposite party No. 2 complied with the conditions and he received three free Air Ticket Forms, which were duly filled in and sent to the petitioners. Complainant and his family made preparations for travelling to south India during summer vacation in the month of May, 2006. Forms were returned by the opposite parties stating that they have not been filled in properly. When no fresh forms were sent, then a notice was sent by opposite party No. 2 to the petitioners on 1.8.2006, but opposite party No. 2 received a fresh form which mentions that Air Port taxes would be Rs. 1800/- instead of Rs. 442/-. Opposite part No. 2 again submitted the duly filled the form and gave the date for availing the facility in Dashera vacation, but tickets were not made available to him. Opposite party No. 2 talked to the office of Infovision Solutions, A/-2/4 (Lower G.F.), Vasant Vihar New Delhi make my Trip and the offers for the petitioners but of no use. A notice was again sent on 15.9.2006 by the opposite party No. 2.

5. On 13.10.2006 at about 11.00 a.m., the opposite party No. 2 received a telephonic call from 'make my drip' on behalf of Airtel and informed that no direct flight to the destination is available, hence the flight from Delhi to Chennai can be available before 30th October, 2006, but on inquiry by opposite party No. 2 from Railway Station, it was revealed that no reservation in any train is available from Lucknow to Delhi. Whole scheme of the opposite party No. 2 is fraud and they have connived together misrepresented, misled and played fraud with the complainant.

6. On these allegations statement of one Arvind Kumar Srivastava was recorded by the learned Magistrate. Statement of complainant was also recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973

7. The learned Magistrate passed an order dated 13.8.2007 summoning the accused to face the trial under section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the impugned orders and further proceedings of the complaint case.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petition