IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.64 of 2005 Date of decision : March 7, 2008 Soma Devi …Petitioner. Versus Beli Ram and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G., for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Petitioner Soma Devi has challenged the order dated 3.6.2004, annexure P-4, whereby she alongwith certain other persons has been summoned as an accused in a complaint case. It is alleged that the complaint was filed as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by one Ram Singh against respondent Beli Ram and his family members, under Section 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel submits that the alleged incident took place on 31.5.2003, but the complaint was filed on 10.7.2003 and a day before the date of the filing of the complaint, the complainant and some other persons appeared before the SDM, for the first time, in the proceedings under section 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. I have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Without touching the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 3.6.2004 passed by the Magistrate is set aside, because the order is illegal having been passed without application of mind. Under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to record his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused person(s) for the offences, which should be mentioned in the order. In the present case, neither the Magistrate has recorded the satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons nor has he named the offences for which the accused are summoned to face trial. Thus, the order is illegal and is consequently set aside. The matter is remanded to the Magistrate for passing a speaking order. 4. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Magistrate on 8th April, 2008. Petition stands disposed of. March 7, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J