# Sachin Dahiya & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 353
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-17
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4191 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-dahiya-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45895
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 202, 482 -
Challenge to summoning order - Challenge
to summoning order- Territorial jurisdiction -
No enquiry / investigation under section 202 by
Magistrate before passing summoning order -
Order is also non-speaking and does not reflect
application of mind - Impugned order quashed
- Matter remanded for fresh consideration denovo.

Application disposed of. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

7 All. Sachin Dahiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
353
although rebuttable. The burden to rebut
presumption lies on the party challenging
the factum of service. Reference in this
regard may be had to the judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Indian Bank v. Datla Venkata Chinna
Krishnam Raju; Ram Chandra Verma v.
Jagat Singh Singhi and others; ATTABIRA
Regulated Market Committee v. Ganesh
Rice Mills; Union of India v. Ujagar Lal;
C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed
(Paras 10 & 15 ) and Sunil Kumar
Shambhudayal Gupta (DR) and others v.
State of Maharashtra (Paras 53 to 56).

11. Countering the argument, learned
A.G.A. for the State has submitted that
condition of service of notice virtually
stands complied with in view of the fact
that the postal letter which was sent and
had come back with note "left", meaning
thereby service was made effective.

12. Banking upon the judgment,
learned counsel for the applicant submits
that
the
complaint
was
ultimately
maintainable and it cannot be said that
mandatory requirement of law was not
fulfilled.

13. Having heard the arguments
advanced by both the parties, I find that the
complaint was well within time taking into
consideration the judgment of Yogendra
Pratap Singh (supra). Therefore, the
revisional order dated 22.10.2019 is set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the
court concerned to decide the same afresh
by passing a speaking and reasoned order
in accordance with law in the light of the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra) within a
period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

14. The application stands allowed.
----------
(2020)07ILR A353
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4191 of 2020

Sachin Dahiya & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Naveen Tiwari, Sti Prashant Manchand,
Sri Prshant Vikram Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 202, 482 -
Challenge to summoning order - Challenge
to summoning order- Territorial jurisdiction -
No enquiry / investigation under section 202 by
Magistrate before passing summoning order -
Order is also non-speaking and does not reflect
application of mind - Impugned order quashed
- Matter remanded for fresh consideration denovo.

Application disposed of. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. Vijay Dhanuka & ors. Vs Najima Mamtaj &
ors., (2014) 14 SCC, 638.

2. Abhijit Pawar Vs Hemant Madhukar Nimalkar
(2017) III SCC, 528.
3. Mahmood- Ul-Rehman Vs Khazir Mohd Tunda
(Para 20 and 22) (2016) 1 SCC (Crl) 124.

4. Vinay Kumar @ Kallu & anr. Vs St. Of U.P. &
anr. in Criminal Misc. Application (482) No.
23895/2018.
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. Mahboob & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2017(2)
JIC 320 (All) (LB).

6. Smt. Shiv Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.2017 (2) JIC 589 (All) (LB).

7. Hariram Verma & 4 ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
reported in 2017 (99) All CC 104.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

[1] Heard Shri Naveen Tiwari and Sri
Prashant Manchanda, learned counsels for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the
record.

[2] This is an application under section
482 Cr.P.C. filed by learned Counsels for the
applicants. After hearing the arguments at
length, learned counsel has raised certain vital
legal issues emanating from perusal of the
impugned summoning order dated 02.05.2019
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Room No. 12, Baghpat in
Complaint Case No. 710/2018 U/s 406 I.P.C.

[3] Learned counsel for the applicant has
pointed out serious legal fallacy and flaws in the
impugned summoning order dated 02.05.2019
as the same is in direct and stark defiance of the
true spirit of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., thus, the
Court proposes to evaluate the submissions of
learned counsel for the applicant and decide the
issue at the admission stage itself.

[4] Before discussing the legal aspect of
the issue, it is imperative to give a brief factual
insight of the case so as to appreciate the
controversy involved in its correct legal
perspective;

[5] The applicants have invoked
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
section 482 Cr.P.C., by challenging summoning
order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room
No. 12, Baghpat in Complaint case filed by
opposite party no.2 In re: Sureshwati Vs.
Kadam Singh Dahiya and others in Complaint
Case No. 710/2018 U/s 406 I.P.C., Police
Station Binolli, District Baghpat and the entire
proceeding of Complaint Case including the
non-bailable-warrants dated 02.01.2020 against
the
accused/applicants
procuring
their
attendance to face the prosecution under section
406 IPC.

[6] Applicant no.1, Sachin Dahiya is
the husband of Ms. Priya (hence deceased)
and applicant nos.2 and 3 are the father-inlaw and mother-in-law respectively of the
deceased daughter-in-law. From the title of
the case, it is explicitly clear that all the
applicants permanently reside at D-41,
Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. During
their stay at Delhi, applicant no. 1 got
married with daughter of opposite party
no.2 on 28.11.2014 at Delhi itself.

[7] Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that after camouflaging her real
address, opposite party no.2 initiated the
present criminal case at Baghpat, projecting
that she is permanent resident of District
Baghpat and this manipulation was done by
her, just to harass the applicants and
torpedo the applicants with number of
criminal cases against them at different
places. It is asserted by the learned counsel
for the applicants that the real and
permanent address of opposite party no.2 is
RZ-C 109, Vinodpuri, Vijay Enclave,
Palam Davari Road, Delhi but she has
obscured her true and permanent address
and just to create the territorial jurisdiction
at Baghpat, managed to get the complaint
filed at Baghpat judgeship.

[8] After the marriage, the husband
and wife started residing at Delhi where the
marriage was solemnized but on account of
7 All. Sachin Dahiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
355
providence on 15.10.2015, Ms. Priya (the
wife)
under
suspicious
circumstances
queerly died not only untimely but also
unnaturally at the residence occupied by
applicant no.1. On the same day a first
information report No. 654/2015 was got
registered under sections 498A, 304B and
34 I.P.C. at Police Station Adarsh Nagar,
Delhi and police too after investigation, has
submitted its report under section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. under the aforementioned sections
of Penal Code.

[9] Contentions raised by counsel for
the applicants are that neither in the first
information report nor during investigation
there was any whisper regarding criminal
breach of trust or misappropriation of
valuable belongings of Ms. Priya, ergo, the
police submitted its report under the
aforementioned sections of Penal Code.
The contention was also raised, that since
there was unnatural demise of Ms. Priya,
during investigation, the police has also
sealed the residential premises, where the
said unfortunate incident took place. The
applicants
are
facing
prosecution
in
competent court at Delhi and the trial of the
case is at advance stage. It is further
contended by the counsel for the applicants
that during the trial, on 29.03.2017 the
prosecution sought permission of the court,
conceding upon which, the apartment was
de-sealed and the police, after preparing the
inventory of articles, handed over those
articles/belongings to deceased's brother.

[10] It is next contended that when
the trial is at advance stage, in order to
multiply the cases against the applicants
and just for the sake of harassment, on
20.12.2018, opposite party no.2 filed
present
complaint
case
before
the
competent Magistrate at Baghpat and in
this process to boil up the filth, opposite
party no.2 has annexed her old voter I.D.
card issued to her in year 1995 to
manipulate
territorial
jurisdiction
at
Baghpat.

[11] The learned counsel for the
applicants has drawn attention of the
court to the testimony of opposite party
no.2 recorded as PW-18 before Sri
Ramesh Kumar, Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.5 (North), Rohini Court,
Delhi during the trial of FIR No.
654/2018, In re: State Vs. Sachin. While
giving her deposition as PW-18, she
introduced herself as Smt. Sureshwati
wife of late Shri Raj Kumar Rana
resident of RZ-C, 109, Vinodpuri, Palam,
Vijay Enclave, Delhi. Thus contended
that in the present complaint case, she has
mislead the court, by demonstrating
wrong address at village Dhanora, Silvar
Nagar Police Station Vinolli, Baghpat
U.P. for that purpose and it is vigorously
contended that the learned Magistrate has
probably overlooked this legal fallacy
and entertained the said complaint case
filed by complainant Ms. Sureshwati,
without verifying her correct proper
address. Besides this, it is also canvassed
that daughter of opposite party no.2 had
initiated
proceeding
before
Crime
Against Women Cell, (CAW Cell), Delhi
in year 2015 wherein a list of articles
were furnished by opposite party no.2
and responding to that list, the applicants
have already handed over those articles,
lying in the sealed flat, during course of
trial at Delhi. The learned counsel for the
applicants in paragraph no. 18 of the
petition has prepared a comparative chart,
trying to impress upon the Court, the
shifting stands of opposite party no.2.
Contentions raised, that before every
upcoming forum, she painted new picture
and new list of the articles.
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

[12] This Court while entertaining the
instant 482 application ex-parte, is not in
position to adjudicate anything on factual
merits of the case, with regard to
submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicants with regard to
alleged discrepancies in the list of articles
but certainly the Court can arbitrate and
gauge the territorial jurisdiction of the court
and the process adopted by the learned
Magistrate while passing the cognizance
order dated 02.05.2019 for the offence
under section 406 IPC while summoning
the applicants.

[13] Contention raised by the counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
learned
Magistrate lacks territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the instant complaint case on the
ground
that-
contesting
parties
are
permanent residents of Delhi; the marriage
was solemnized at Delhi; unfortunate
incident of demise of daughter of opposite
party no.2 took place at Delhi and the
applicants are facing prosecution under
section 304B I.P.C. and allied sections
pending before the competent Sessions
Judge at Rohini Court, Delhi. Concealing
all these material facts, opposite party no.2
projected herself to be permanent resident
of Baghpat demonstrating old voter I.D.
Card of 1995. The concerned Magistrate,
and after recording the statements under
section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., passed a
mechanical
cognizance
order
dated
02.05.2019, which is annexed as annexure
10 to the petition.

Learned counsel for the applicants
drew attention of the court to the legal
proposition contained under section 202(1)
Cr.P.C. which reads thus:-

202.(Postponement of issue of
process-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a
compliant of an offence of which he is
authorized to take cognizance or which has
been made over to him under Section 192,
may, if he thinks fit and shall, in a case
where the accused is residing at a place
beyond the area in which he exercises his
jurisdiction} postpone the issue of process
against the accused and either inquire into
the case himself or direct an investigation
to be made by a police officer or by such
other person as he thinks fit, for the
purpose of deciding whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding;

Provided that no such direction for
investigation shall be made-

(a) where it appears to the
Magistrate that the offence complained of is
triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or

(b) where the compliant has not
been
made
by
a
Court,
unless
the
complainant and the witnesses present (if
any) have been examined on oath under
Section 200.

[14] The underlying object of this
Amendment of 2005 is to save the
applicants from the false complaints against
the persons, who reside at far off places
simply to harass them but after this
amendment, it is made obligatory upon the
Magistrate that before summoning the
applicants reside beyond his jurisdiction, he
must enquire into the case either himself or
direct the investigation to be made by
police officer or by such person as he deem
fit, so as to ascertain as to whether or not
there was sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the proposed accused persons.

[15] In order to buttress his
contention, the learned counsel for the
applicants has cited 2 citations; (I) VIJAY
7 All. Sachin Dahiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
357
DHANUKA
AND
OTHERS
VS.
NAJIMA MAMTAJ AND OTHERS,
2014 (14) SCC, 638, (ii) ABHIJIT
PAWAR VS. HEMANT MADHUKAR
NIMALKAR
2017(III)
SCC,
528
paragraph nos. 23 and 24; which are as
under:-

(23). Admitted position in law is
that in those cases where the accused is
residing at a place beyond the area in which
the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it
is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate
to conduct an enquiry or investigation
before issuing the process. Section 202
Cr.P.C. was amended in the year 2005 by
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from
22.06.2006 by adding the words "and shall,
in a case where the accused is residing at a
place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction". There is a vital purpose or
objective behind this amendment, namely;
to ward off false complaints against such
persons residing at a far-off places in order
to save them from unnecessary harassment.
Thus, the amended provision casts an
obligation on the Magistrate to conduct
enquiry or direct investigation before
issuing the process, so that false complaints
are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid
purpose is specifically mentioned in the
note appended to the Bill proceeding the
said amendment.

24. The essence and purpose of
this amendment has been captured by this
court in Vijay Dhanuka Vs. Najima Mamtaj
in the following words: (SCC P.644, paras
11 - 12).

11. Section 202 of the Code, inter
alia, contemplates postponement of the
issue of the process ''in a case where the
accused is residing at a place beyond the
area in which he exercises his jurisdiction'
and thereafter to either inquire into the case
by himself or direct an investigation to be
made by a police officer or by such other
person as he thinks fit. In the face of it,
what needs our determination is as to
whether in a case where the accused is
residing at a place beyond the area in which
the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction,
inquiry is mandatory or not.

12. The words ''and shall, in a
case where the accused is residing at a
place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction, where inserted by Section
19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005)
w.e.f.
23.06.2006.
The
aforesaid
amendment,
in
the
opinion
of
the
legislature,
was
essential
as
false
complaints
are
filed
against
persons
residing at far-off places in order to harass
them. The note for the amendment reads as
follows:-

''False
complaints
are
filed
against persons residing at far-off places
simply to harass them. In order to see that
innocent persons are not harassed by
unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to
amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to
make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that
before summoning the accused residing
beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into
the case himself or direct investigation to
be made by a police officer or by such
other person as he thinks fit, for finding out
whether or not there was sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.'

The use of the expression "shall"
prima facie makes the inquiry or the
investigation, as the case may be, by the
Magistrate mandatory. The word "shall" is
ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking
into account the context or the intention, it
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can be held to be directory. The use of the
word "shall" in all circumstances is not
decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid
principle, when we look to the intention of
the legislature, we find that it is aimed to
prevent innocent persons from harassment
by
unscrupulous
persons
from
false
complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use
of
the
expression
"shall"
and
the
background and the purpose for which the
amendment has been brought, we have no
doubt in our mind that inquiry or the
investigation, as the case may be, is
mandatory before summons are issued
against the accused living beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

[16] Thus, from the aforesaid, it is
crystal clear that the amended provision casts
an obligation on a Magistrate, in order to save
the innocents from unwarranted harassment
by unscrupulous complaint by file a fake
complaint against the proposed accused, who
reside beyond the territorial limits. This legal
plug was inserted by the legislation as it is not
an ornamental amendment but has got legal
significance, just to safeguard the interest of
proposed accused, who reside beyond the
territorial limits of the Magistrate. It is
incumbent upon the Magistrate as the word
"Shall" reflects that under this extraordinary
situation, where proposed accused reside
beyond this territorial limit, before issuing
summons, calling upon them to face the
prosecution, postpone this exercise of issuing
summons and either inquire into the case for
himself or direct the police to hold proper
investigation with the object as to whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
This is not a mere formality but it carries
significance. A Magistrate is not supposed to
act as post office or act as a ministerial job or
is not a vending machine. Summoning a
person for an offence is not for the purposes
of amendment but casts/reflects upon the
carrier/character of the person summoned.
Thus, it must be exercised diligently with
utmost care and only after duly satisfying.
The order of summoning must reflect that this
exercise has been duly conducted by the
Magistrate before passing the summoning
order.

[17] The steps taken by Magistrate
under section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. followed
by Section 204 Cr.P.C. shall reflect that
Magistrate has applied his judicial mind to
the facts and statements and he satisfied
himself that the grounds proceeding further in
the matter by asking the person against whom
the volition of law is alleged to appear before
the court. The satisfaction on the ground for
proceeding would mean that the facts alleged
in complaint would constitute an offence and
when considered along with the statements
recorded, would prima facie make the
accused answerable to the court. The Code of
Criminal Procedure requires speaking order.
As mentioned earlier, a Magistrate is not to
act as post office or a vending machine while
taking cognizance of each and every
complaint filed before him and issue process
as a matter of course. There must be a
sufficient indication in the order passed by
the
Magistrate
that
he
satisfied
that
allegations in the complaint constitute an
offence and when considered along with the
statements recorded and the result of enquiry
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 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.

[18] If there is no such indication in
the case, when the Magistrate proceeds
under sections 190/204 Cr.P.C. the High
7 All. Sachin Dahiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
359
Court is perfectly justified in upsetting such
order in exercise of its extraordinary
inherent process under section 482 Cr.P.C.
to prevent court. To be summoned to
appear before the criminal court as an
accused, is a serious matter affecting ones
dignity, self respect and image in the
society. Hence the process of criminal court
shall not be made a weapon of harassment
or arm twisting or equate the pending
equations.

[19] From the title of the case as
mentioned above, applicants are permanent
resident of Delhi and in fact the opposite
party no.2 is also permanent resident of
Delhi but she hide and concealed her
identity as alleged by the counsel for the
applicants and succeeded in getting her
compliant entertained. There is no such
inquiry/investigation as contemplated under
section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and the learned
Magistrate which, in fact obligatory on his
part, before issuing the process against the
accused/applicants, in most casual or
cryptic moments.

[20] I have keenly perused the order
impugned dated 02.05.2019 and this court
afraid to mention that the order impugned
is well short of the standard setup by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay
Dhanuka(supra) and Abhijit Pawar
(supra), Mahmood- -Ul-Rehman Vs.
Khazir Mohd Tunda (Para 20 and 22)
reported in 2016(1) SCC (Crl) 124 and
thus this court has got no hesitation in
quashing the impugned summoning order
dated 02.05.2019.

[21]

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants has canvassed yet another legal
issue,
while
assailing
the
order
of
summoning
dated
02.05.2019
by
mentioning therein that order impugned is
non-speaking order and nowhere reflects
the application of mind or recording his
satisfaction.

[22] Hillocking his submissions,
learned counsel for the applicants relied
upon another judgment of coordinate bench
of this court in the case of VINAY
KUMAR @ KALLU AND ANOTHER
VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER in
Criminal Misc. Application (482) No.
23895/2018
decided
on
02.08.2018
whereas the coordinate bench of this court
while relying upon the judgments of
Mahboob and others Vs. State of U.P.
and another 2017(2) JIC 320 (All) (LB)
and Smt. Shiv Kumar and others Vs.
State of U.P. and another reported in
year 2017 (2) JIC 589 (All) (LB) and
Hariram Verma and 4 others Vs. State
of U.P. and Another reported in 2017
(99) All CC 104. The paragraph no. 8 of
this judgment is quoted herein below: -

8. But in the impugned order
there is nothing which may indicate that
learned Magistrate had even considered
facts of the case in hand before passing the
summoning order. Impugned order clearly
lacks the reflection of application of
judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is
there which may show that learned
Magistrate, before passing of the order
under challenge had considered facts of the
case and evidence of law. Therefore, it
appears that, in fact, no judicial mind was
applied before the passing of impugned
order of summoning. Such order cannot be
accepted as a proper legal judicial order
passed after following due procedure of
law.

[23] The coordinate bench of this
court
repeatedly
reiterated
that
the
summoning order
must
reflective
of
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application of judicial discretion, mind and
reason has to be recorded before issuing
process against the accused/applicants. If
the court would compare the impugned
order
dated
02.05.2019
with
the
requirement of law mentioned under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. and elaborated by the
celebrated judgments of Hon'ble Apex
Court and coordinate benches of this court
mentioned
above,
this
court
is
of
considered view that the impugned order
only narrates the statement of complainant
and
the
witnesses
and
also
certain
documents/notice and nothing more. I am
afraid to gather even a whisper of
satisfaction of Magistrate concern, in the
impugned summoning order.

[24] On a bare perusal of the order
impugned, without having any shadow of
doubt, is cryptic and it is quite evident that
the learned Magistrate has acted in a most
perfunctory and casual manner. FIRSTLY;
Despite the fact, that applicants are
permanent residents of Delhi, he has not
held any inquiry for himself or directed the
police
to
hold
investigation,
as
contemplated under section 202(1) Cr.P.C.
and SECONDLY; The order impugned is
simply a bald narration of complaint case
and numbers of supporting witnesses and
documents. Accordingly, in exercise of
power under section 482 Cr.P.C. this court
sets-aside the impugned summoning order
dated 02.05.2019 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 12,
Baghpat and remands the matter back for
fresh consideration de-novo.

[25] While remanding the matter
afresh, this Court expects from learned
Magistrate to hold an enquiry/investigation
afresh, as contemplated under section 202
(1) Cr.P.C. It is rather impossible to spell
out the form and shape of such a proposed
enquiry/investigation, but certainly all
those areas, which are enumerated in the
judgement, must be properly filtered before
recording his satisfaction by speaking order
and issuing any summon (if at all, he so
decides) and pass appropriate order within
ten weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.

[26] With the above observation,
present 482 application stands disposed-off.
----------

(2020)07ILR A360
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5705 of 2006

Sanjay Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ram Babu Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal Procedure court - Section 202,
482 - Challenge to summoning order -
Only material witnesses refused to be examined
by complainant to make out a prima facie case
- Consequence of non-examination of to be
considered by Magistrate at the trial and not at
the stage of issuing summoning order -
Magistrate is only required to see of sufficient
ground made out to proved against accused.
Non-examination of all witnesses not material -
No error in procedure adopted.

Application rejected. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-