JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vidya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of summoning order dated 02.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.2953 of 2014, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station - Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant criminal complaint filed by opposite party no.2 is a counter blast to the Application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, filed by applicant no.1 herein as the opposite party no.2 had left the company of applicant no.1 without any reasonable cause, therefore, the instant complaint has been filed on false and fabricated facts. The opposite no.2 had sent a notice on 02.07.2017 and asked the applicants to return the articles. The said legal notice was duly replied by applicant no.1 and it was stated that no such articles as has been mentioned in the list annexed with the notice, have ever been received by the applicants, therefore, there is no question of returning the same. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that no dowry was given by opposite party no.2 or her family members as the marriage between the parties has taken place through their interaction on the Facebook etc. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that as per Section 202 Cr.P.C., since the applicants herein were residing outside the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate then the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and no such enquiry has been conducted. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the impugned summoning order dated 02.05.2015 is illegal, which has been passed without conducting any enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the paragraph no.34 of the judgment of Apex Court in Birla Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and others : AIR 2019 SC (Criminal) 1025, which reads as follows:

"34.TheorderoftheMagistratesummoningtheaccusedmustreflectthat he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction........”

4. On a query made to learned counsel for the applicants that whether even if it is accepted that the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and if learned Magistrate in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. decides to conduct an enquiry himself, as the discretion is given to the Magistrate, then what type of enquiry the Magistrate is required to conduct in the matter when a complaint and the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are available before the Magistrate, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in Mahmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & others : AIR (2015) SC 2195, which reads as follows:

“ ........ There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C., if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction........”

5. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants submits that such enquiry has been conducted without issuing any notice to the applicants.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has relied upon paragraph no.61 of the said judgmen