JUDGMENT

Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal revision is directed against summoning order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Complaint Case No. 4139 of 2022 (Manoj Agarwal v. Pradeep Agarwal and another) filed under Sections 406 , 182, 465, 467, 468, 471, 385 and 311 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah. By the impugned order learned Magistrate has summoned revisionist no.1 for the offence under Sections 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and revisionist no.2 for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 is false, frivolous and vexatious. It has been filed by concealing real facts and fraud has been played upon the court. Opposite party no.2 had issued a cheque of Rs.18 lacs on 21.03.2018 in favour of revisionist no.1 which was dishonoured and revisionist no.1 has filed Complaint Case No.845 of 2018 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in which opposite party no.2 has been summoned on 15.09.2018. Opposite party no.2 filed Criminal Misc. Application (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 2618 of 2019 before this Court to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 845 of 2018 which has been dismissed on 22.01.2019. A protest petition was also filed by opposite party no.2 on 27.11.2018 against the summoning order which was also dismissed by the learned Magistrate against which opposite party no.2 filed Criminal Revision No.33 of 2021 before the Sessions Judge, Etah which was also dismissed on 30.09.2021. Opposite party no.2 concealed material facts from the trial court and as a counter-blast to the complaint filed by revisionist no.1, the present complaint has been filed by opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has not approached the court with clean hands. Learned counsel also contended that there is no material or evidence in support of the allegations made in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the complaint and the oral evidence of Rakesh Sharma PW 1 and Brijesh Kumar PW 2 is hearsay in nature in this respect as they have stated that these facts were disclosed to them by opposite party no.2 Manoj Agarwal. It is further contended that the summoning order must reflect that learned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind to the facts and law applicable thereto because before issuing process criminal court has to exercise great deal of caution in view of the fact that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by enabling them to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts in a cheap manner and the courts must not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings which are false, frivolous and vexatious. The summoning order should not be passed unless there is prima facie evidence against an accused. The impugned order has been passed without considering the evidence on record which is absolutely illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case law in Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma 2022 (2) ACR 1320 (SC).

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that allegations of the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. The complainant has corroborated allegations of the complaint in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The complainant has also produced two witnesses Rakesh Sharma PW 1 and Brijesh Kumar PW 2 who have further corroborated the allegations of the complaint. From the allegations of the complaint and evidence produced by the complainant a prima facie case is made out against the revisionists-accused. Learned counsel fu