IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that summoning of an accused in a criminal case requires the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process, and the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and carefully scrutinize the evidence before summoning the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Naresh Kaushik, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate who has filed his 'Vakalatnama' along with counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2, the same are taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will not file rejoinder affidavit and has requested that the matter may be heard finally on the basis of material available on record.

3. This petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for setting aside /quashing the impugned summoning order dated 15.10.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M., Bahraich against the petitioner and 6 others u/s 406, 419, 420 IPC in Complaint Case No. 4383 of 2010 (Ramesh Chandra Mishra vs. Ramesh Iyer and others) contained as Annexure no. 1.

4. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief :

"Wherefore, for the facts and reasons stated in the by an petition supported by affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned summoning orders dated 15.10.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bahriach as well as Order dated 10.02.2011 by which the bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner in complaint case no. 4383/2010 Ramesh Chandra Mishra Vs Ramesh Iyer & others contained as Annexure no 1 & 2 to this petition It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the proceedings of complaint case no.4383/2010, Ramesh Chandra Mishra Vs. Ramesh lyer & others pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Bahraich, during pendency of the petition."

5. That the petitioner is working as Managing Director of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. (referred as 'MMFSL' hereinafter), having his office at Mumbai and having no concern with day-to-day affairs of the Branches.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of the case, in brief, are that in the year 2006 a Bolero vehicle was financed to one Durgesh Kumar Vaishya by MMFSL, which was surrendered by him after default of installment. The said Vehicle was thereafter sold to opposite party no. 2, Ramesh Chandra Mishra for Rs. 3,50,000/-, who issued 4 post-dated cheques bearing Cheque No. 881607 dated 26.12.2007 for Rs. 1,00,000/-Cheque No. 881608 dated 28.12.2007 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, Cheque No. 881609 dated 31.12.2007 for Rs. 50,000/-and Cheque No. 881615 dated 31.01.2008 for Rs. 1,00,000/-.

7. That the opposite party no. 2 unauthorizedly sold the said Vehicle to one Mehtab Gori for an amount of Rs, 3,51,000/-showing himself to be Authorized Representative and employee of MMFSL, he fabricated a payment receipt dated 28.11.2007 on a Rs. 20/-Judicial Stamp Paper Impersonating as Recovery Officer of the company. The opposite party no. 2 also managed to transfer the vehicle from the R.T.O. on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and got issued a temporary authorization of registration from the R.T.O. in the name of his Purchaser Mehtab Ahmad. In the meantime 2 out of 4 cheques provided by the opposite party no. 2 to MMFSL got dishonored due to insufficient funds, against which the MMFSL filed a complaint case on 16.06.2008 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act bearing Case No. 713/2008 (later changed to Case No. 300 of 2010 after transfer), the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, (SD), Faizabad summoned the opposite party no. 2 in the said case.

8. That the opposite party no. 2 coming to know about the summoning under Negotiable instruments Act, filed a complaint /application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the court of C.J.M., Bahraich against three persons only including the present applicant alleging that the MMFSL has taken Rs. 1,00,000/-cash and Rs. 1,50,000/-through cheque, but has not handed over the vehicle, instead sold it to some third person and misappropriated the money given by the opposite par