IMPORTANT POINT
There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. — Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.M.C. Nos. 3376 & 3375 of 2009 whereby the High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants herein for quashing the summoning order dated 16.01.2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No. 290 of 2002 registered at Police Station, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).

3. Brief facts:

(a) The present cases pertain to a property dispute regarding distribution of the assets left behind by late Shri Gulshan Kumar (of T- Series fame). On 19.02.1998, a handwritten note was executed between the appellants and Respondent No. 2 wherein distribution of certain assets and shares in different companies was provided for. Subsequently, on 21.02.1998, a fresh agreement was entered into between the appellants and the Respondent No. 2 which superseded the handwritten note.

(b) However, disputes arose soon after the above said second agreement dated 21.02.1998, giving rise to multifarious litigations at the behest of Respondent No. 2 which are presently pending adjudication before the High Court.

(c) However, after 4 years, due to non-materialization of the agreement dated 21.02.1998, the Respondent No. 2 got registered the present FIR under Section 420 IPC against all the other signatories to the said agreement wherein only one of the signatory was a party to it. For quashing the said FIR, the appellants herein filed Crl.M.C. No. 59 of 2005 before the High Court.

(d) On being informed by the State that chargesheet has been filed before the Magistrate, the High Court disposed of the Crl.M.C. No. 59 of 2005 vide order dated 30.03.2009 giving liberty to the appellants to take appropriate steps in case they are summoned.

(e) By order dated 16.01.2009, the Magistrate summoned the appellants herein. Challenging the said summoning order, the appellants herein filed Criminal M.C. Nos. 3376 and 3375 of 2009 before the High Court.

(f) By the impugned order dated 30.07.2010, the High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants for quashing the summoning order passed by the Magistrate. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. The questions which arise for consideration in these appeals are:

(a) Whether taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is same as summoning an accused to appear?

(b) Whether the Magistrate, while considering the question of summoning an accused, is required to assign reasons for the same?

6. In this context, it is relevant to extract Sections 190 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which read as under:

“190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence ;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.”

“204. Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit,