Point of law : Section 204 Cr.P.C. does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 14.12.2020 as well as the summoning order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, (SD) Court No. 1, Moradabad, in Criminal Case No. 16564 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 248 of 2020, State vs. Sachin Gupta and Others, under Sections 420, 406, 409 I.P.C., Police Station Mundapandey, District Moradabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed without there being any evidence whatsoever against him. He has further submitted that since there is no evidence whatsoever in support of the evidence neither there is any material to frame the charge against the accused nor the proceeding can fruitfully be continued against him. His further submission is that the order of taking cognizance has been passed without due application of judicial mind. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, the impugned criminal proceedings be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicant on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that prima-facie no offence is made out against applicant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhushan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi, AIR 2012 SC 1747 has held that in determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is 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 inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Section 204 Cr.P.C. does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430, Vadilal Panchal vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker, AIR 1960 SC 1113 and Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976 (3) SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

7. The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, Parabatbhai Ahir and Others vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2017 SC 4843 and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976 (3) SCC 736. The cases where the allegations