Criminal Misc. No.M-4450 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-4450 of 2009 Date of decision : 11.11.2009 Satish Kumar and another ....petitionerss Versus Shri S.K.Dagar and others ....Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. As per report made by the Registry, notices could not be issued to respondents no.2 to 4 as their fresh/correct addresses were not furnished. A direction in the relevant behalf came to be issued to the petitioners in view of a report that they were not residing at the given addresses. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that he gives up respondents no.2 to 4 as unnecessary in view of the fact that complaint in the relevant behalf had been filed by respondent no.1. Insofar as respondent no.1 is concerned, he had been duly served for an earlier date but none had appeared on his behalf. Heard. The impugned order, vide which the summoning of the petitioners to face a trial, was ordered is cryptic on the very face of it. It consists of three paras. In the course of para l, the learned Magistrate Criminal Misc. No.M-4450 of 2009 -2- **** notices the filing of the complaint and the closure of preliminary evidence on tendering of own affidavit by the complainant. Para 2 notices that counsel for the complainant-respondent had been heard and the material placed on the file had been perused. The further recorded therein is that the petitioners accused had issued the relevant cheque which, on presentation, bounced on account of insufficient funds. It also notices therein the factum of non payment of cheque amount inspite of the effecting of service of a legal notice. The discussion is contained only in para 3 of the order which reproduced hereunder:- “As such there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Let, the accused be summoned under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for 26.2.08 on filing of PF etc.” It would be apparent from the above discussion that the learned Trial Magistrate did not even advert to contents of the affidavit which the respondent-complainant had tendered into evidence. Issuance of a process of the indicated category fetters liberty of an individual and the Court must notice the facts, though with required brevity, what exactly had weighed with it in ordering the issuance of a process. It would be inappropriate for a Court of law to direct the issuance of a process against a party without noticing what exact material had been adduced in evidence to support the allegations of the complainant. It is a sacrosanct duty of the Magistrate to pass an order wherefrom the Appellate/Revisional Court can find for itself how exactly the mind of the learned Court ordering summoning had worked. The impugned order does not, at all, give an idea about that. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order of summoning dated 4.12.2007 Criminal Misc. No.M-4450 of 2009 -3- **** Annexure P-6 shall stand quashed. The learned Magistrate shall, however, be at liberty to pass an order afresh by granting a speaking order. Disposed of accordingly. November 11, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE