Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.N. Bajpayee, learned A.G.A. for the State.The order which is impugned in the instant application filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dated 9.6.2011, passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Garh Mukteshwar, District Ghaziabad in Case No.317 of 2011 (State Vs.Ilmas) arising out of Case Crime No.35 of 2011 (State Vs.Bablu and others) under Section 302, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Simbhawali, Ghaziabad by which the applicant has been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 506 I.P.C.The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 Asif lodged a first information report at P.S. Simbhawali on 1.2.2011 (annexure no.1 to the affidavit accompanying this application) at about 8.45 p.m. alleging therein that when on 31.1.2011 at about 6.00 pm the informant, his brother Chaman and one Rahat S/o Tahir after having their meal were going on a walk three persons, namely, Bablu, Nadeem and one unknown person, all armed with country made pistols appeared before them and Nadeem caught hold of Chaman while Bablu shot Chaman in his stomach with his country made pistol and the third person held the informant and Rahat away from Chaman at gunpoint.The injured Chaman was taken to the hospital where he died.On the basis of the aforesaid FIR Case Crime No.35 of 2011 was registered against Nadeem, Bablu and one unknown person.During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer apart from collecting other materials recorded the statements of informant Nadeem and Rahat and upon completion of investigation laid down charge sheet bearing no.33 of 2011 dated 23.2.2011under Section 302 and 506 I.P.C. (annexure no.8) before the concerned Magistrate against Nadeem and Bablu.On the application moved by the complainant/opposite party no.2 before the S.S.P., Ghaziabad the matter was directed to be investigated further by S.I.S., Ghaziabad by his order dated 25.2.2011 which has been brought on record by the applicant as annexure no.S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit).During further investigation the S.I.S., Ghaziabad examined the informant Asif and two new witnesses Jan Mohammad @ Janu and Aftab who in their statements claimed that they had seen the applicant along with other co-accused armed with country made pistols running away from the place of occurrence on the relevant date after they had reached there upon hearing the sound of gun shot.Relying upon the statements of Jan Mohammad @ Janu and Aftab charge sheet bearing no.33-A of 2011 dated 23.5.2011 was submitted against the applicant after completion of further investigation where upon the court below took cognizance and summoned the applicant by his order dated 9.6.2011 (annexure no.12 to the affidavit accompanying this application).Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the impugned order by which the applicant has been summoned by the court below is an absolutely non-speaking and cryptic order which does not reflect any application of judicial mind by the concerned Magistrate to the facts of the case and the materials on record and since before a Magistrate, upon receipt of a complaint or a police report or any other information showing commission of a cognizable offence, takes cognizance and issues process, it is imperative that it must be discernible from the order of the Magistrate that he has taken into consideration the charge sheet and the other papers submitted therewith for satisfying himself as to whether a prima facie case against the accused for the concerned offences is made out and since the impugned orders does not conform to the aforesaid requirement, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.Sri Brijesh Sahai, next submitted that the applicant having not been charge sheeted in the investigation which followed the registration of the FIR at the behest of the opposite party no.2, the investigation pursuance to which charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant is without any sanction of law as the said investigation was not further investigation but reinvestigation which is forbidden under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as would be evident from the perusal of the charge sheet submitted against the applicant which has been described as charge sheet (mool) and not as supplementary charge sheet.Sri Brijesh Sahai also submitted that even it is presumed that the impugned investigation was further investigation, the same was bad on account of having been done without the permission of the concerned court.Sri Brijesh Sahai lastly submitted that evidence on the basis of which the court below has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant does not disclose the commission of any offences by the applicant and the same is not at all sufficient for his conviction for the offences with which he has been charge sheeted.LJ 2897, Virendra Prasad Singh Vs.Rajesh Bhardwaj, 2010 (9) SCC 171, Ram Chandra Vs.Adya Kumar and others, 2008 (3) JIC 484 (SC) and Hasan Bhai Vali Bhai Qureshi Vs.Sri K.N. Bajpayee, learned A.G.A. appearing for the state-respondents submitted that it is trite law that no detailed order is required to be passed at the stage of summoning, no meticulous examination of facts is required to be done at that stage and what Section 204 of the code ordains is that if in the opinion of a Magistrate for taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding ,he shall issue summons for the attendance of the accused and the aforesaid section no where requires the Magistrate to record reasons for summoning.

Cited provisions: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code