Point of law: Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code

JUDGMENT :

SAROJ YADAV, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing of the order dated 14.08.2018 summoning the accused-applicant to face the trial, passed in Case Crime No. 515/2014, under Sections 406/420/465/468/471/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.) Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

2. Heard Shri Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Shri Amit Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. In short, the facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows:-

The opposite party no. 2-Arun Kumar Gupta lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 515/2014, under Sections 406/420/465/468/471/504/506 IPC, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow against the petitioner/accused Alok Gupta. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner/ accused in the Court. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow took cognizance vide order dated 01.12.2014 and summoned the petitioner Alok Gupta to face trial in the above mentioned crime. Being aggrieved by the order of cognizance, the petitioner preferred a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Criminal Misc. Case No. 2066 of 2015 (Alok Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others) for quashing the order of taking cognizance dated 01.12.2014. This Court quashed the order dated 01.12.2014 vide order dated 23.07.2018 and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow to pass the order afresh. The relevant part of the order of this Court is quoted below:-

“Under such circumstance, I find that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I quash the said order and remit the case to the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow with a direction to re-apprise first information report, charge-sheet and case diary along with all the papers attached with the case diary and then record his satisfaction as to how the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet are prima-facie made out against the petitioner then pass the order either accepting or rejecting the charge-sheet. The said order must be passed within one month from the date of production/receipt of certified copy of this order by either of the parties.”

4. In compliance of the above order of this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow passed the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 and summoned the petitioner.

5. This order has been assailed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has not applied its mind and also violated the principle of natural justice. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has mentioned that the counsel for the petitioner (accused) was given an opportunity of being heard, however, the fact so mentioned is incorrect and false as petitioner neither moved application nor counsel of the petitioner/accused was heard before passing the impugned order. This is in gross violation of principle of natural justice as the petitioner/accused was not heard and the order was passed mentioning that petitioner/accused-applicant was heard. The petitioner/ accused was not heard despite of this Court's order dated 23.07.2018, hence the order dated 14.08.2018 should be quashed.

6. Contrary to it, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 (complainant) and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the impugned order is perfectly legal order as far as it relates to taking cognizance. The concerned Magistrate has mentioned in the order about all the relevant documents on the basis of which he has taken cognizance of the case. The mention of the name of the petitioner/accuse