The main legal point established is that the summoning of an accused in a criminal case must be based on sufficient material and reflect the magistrate's careful scrutiny of the evidence. Additionally, the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 to scrutinize orders passed by subordinate courts.

( 1 ) THE present criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the code of Criminal (hereinafter for short 'code') has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 56 of 2001 after setting aside the summoning order dated 16-11-2001 passed by I Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar and also judgment and order dated 29-4-2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar in criminal revision No. 20 of 2002.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri K. S. Verma, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned A. G. A. for State.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 complainant filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the code before the learned Magistrate alleging that on 23-8-2001 at about 11 a. m. , eight accused named therein and who are the petitioners in the present petition trespassed into his agricultural plot and assaulted him. Out of these eight, one Suresh Kumar gave a knife blow and another named as Rajbeer fired a shot from pistol which fortunately did not hit the said victim. As a result of the assault he sustained injuries. The report of the incident was not lodged by the police and a registered letter to the S. S. P. , Hardwar also did not bear any fruits. The learned magistrate passed an order directing the concerned S. O. , police station to register the f. I. R. and investigate the same. After investigation final report was submitted on the ground that no witness claimed to have seen the occurrence. Respondent No. 2 ant preferred a protest petition alleging that the investigating officer has not properly made the investigation and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the code were not correctly recorded. Learned magistrate after hearing the parties and on consideration of the case diary, did not agree with the conclusion of the investigating officer and passed an order to summon the accused. This order dated 16-11-2001 is impugned in this petition. A revision was preferred by the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge who after hearing the parties did not find any merit in the same and dismissed it by the impugned judgment and order dated 29-4-2002. The petitioners thereafter filed the present petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no sufficient material on record to prima facie make out a case of assault, criminal intimidation etc. against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate made an error in passing the summoning order. It was also pointed out that the learned Magistrate: has also mentioned in the impugned order that one of the eye witness named as Jaipal Singh claimed to have not heard noise of the firearm shot and it was accordingly argued that there was no reliable evidence to prima, facie establish the allegations of the F. I. R. and there was (thus no occasion to pass the summoning order.

( 5 ) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondent argued that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was within his jurisdiction because it is well settled that once final report is submitted after investigation by the police one of the option available for the learned Magistrate was to disagree with the conclusion and straightway summon the accused to stand trial for the offences alleged therein, and therefore there is no merit in the petition to set aside the said order and quash the criminal proceedings. Learned counsel also submitted that the petition under Section 482 of the Code was not legally maintainable in view of the fact that the revision preferred by the petitioners under Section 397 of the Code against the summoning order had already been dismissed on merit by the learned Sessions Judge by Judgment and order dated 29-4-2002.

( 6 ) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned counsel it may be pointed out at the outset that the present petition has legal force and is fit to be allowed for appropriate relief. Perusal of the summoning order dated 16-1