1. Vide the instant petition the petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 passed by ld.MM, South Delhi whereby ld.MM has passed the order as under :M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 1 of 8documents filed on record.Prima facie there is sufficient material on record to proceed with the case against all the accused persons namely Navdeep Soni, Rani Soni, Sandeep Soni and Dolly Soni.Accordingly, the cognizance is taken against all the accused persons u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.Summons be issued to he accused persons and notice to surety through IO for 31.03.2011."Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were put in column 2 in the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the ld.Further submits that Navdeep Soni being the husband, the charge-sheet was filed against him.MM has not recorded any statement before summoning the three accused.In support of argument, ld. counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.924/2005 titled as Atma Ram Singhal & Ors.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 2 of 8 State & Anr.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 2 of 8The respondent No.2 is the complainant, who lodged complaint under Section 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') against her husband Anil Singhal as well as other relations.This complaint was made to the ACP, Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Pitampura.Thereafter, an FIR was registered.Police, after investigation, filed challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.').Names of the petitioners herein were put in Column No.2 in the said charge sheet.Complainant's husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law were shown as main accused.The relation of these petitioners, who were put in Column No.2, with the complainant's husband is as under :-Petitioner No.1 "Uncle (chacha) of the complainant's husband Petitioner No.2 "Son of the petitioner No.1 Petitioner No.3 "Another uncle of the complainant's husband Petitioner No.4 "Wife of the petitioner No.3 Petitioner No.5 "Daughter of the petitioner No.3 Petitioner No.6 "Son of the petitioner No.3 Petitioner No.7 "Another uncle of the complainant's husband Crl.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 3 of 8M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 3 of 8After the filing of the charge sheet, the learned MM chose to summon all these petitioners, who were shown as accused in Column No.2, by passing the following order :-"Present: APP for the State.Accused present on bail.IO SI Bhagwan Dass present.SI Bhagwan Dass has given his explanation.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 6 of 8 the offence and issue process.However, the question to be determined is as to when the MM decides to issue the process, notwithstanding the observations of the Investigating Officer; is he to indicate some reasons and reflect his thought process in the order as to why he is taking such a course.to consider the same afresh and pass appropriate order.Accordingly, Crl.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 7 of 8 Crl.M.A.10554/2011 (stay) & Crl.M.A.11298/2011 (early hearing) In view of the order passed in Crl.M.C.2992/2011, these applications are dismissed as infructuous.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 7 of 8SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 Vld/RS Crl.

Sections cited: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code