Magistrate not required to give speaking order under Section 204; judicial mind crucial for issuing process.

The court concluded that a magistrate issuing process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not mandated to provide a speaking order, although the magistrate must form an opinion based on prima facie sufficient grounds. The court highlighted the importance of the magistrate applying judicial mind, which can be inferred from the case record. The absence of a detailed speaking order does not invalidate the process issued. Revision petitions and Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) were directed for disposal before the learned Single Judges.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of a speaking order by the magistrate while issuing process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Application of judicial mind by the magistrate.
3. Differing views on the necessity of recording reasons for issuing process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of a Speaking Order by the Magistrate While Issuing Process Under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The primary issue in all four cases was whether a magistrate, when issuing process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), is required by law to pass a speaking order, i.e., to state reasons for doing so. The court noted that there were conflicting opinions on this matter. Some precedents, such as Mubark Karim v. Bundu and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Prem Lata, supported the necessity of a speaking order, arguing that the magistrate must apply his mind to the material and provide sufficient grounds for judicial scrutiny. In contrast, other cases like Hafizar Rahman v. Aminal Hoque and R. N. Bhalla v. Chatur Sain Gupta held that a magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing process, as the mere issuance of process does not equate to a judgment or final order.

2. Application of Judicial Mind by the Magistrate:
The court emphasized the importance of the magistrate applying his mind to the evidence before issuing process. This application of mind ensures that the magistrate forms an opinion based on sufficient grounds. The court referred to various judgments to illustrate this point. For instance, in Mubark Karim v. Bundu, the court held that the magistrate must base his opinion on sufficient grounds apparent from the order, ensuring that the discretion has been judicially exercised. Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court highlighted that giving reasons for an order acts as a restraint on abuse of power and allows for judicial scrutiny.

3. Differing Views on the Necessity of Recording Reasons for Issuing Process:
The court analyzed different viewpoints on whether recording reasons for issuing process is necessary. Cases like Manohar Lal Sharma v. Prem Lata and Banarsi Lal Sachdeva v. Raj Rani endorsed the need for a speaking order, suggesting that it ensures the magistrate's application of mind. On the other hand, cases like M. P. Chauhan v. Nirmal Kumari Chauhan and R. N. Bhalla v. Chatur Sain Gupta argued that a magistrate is not required to pass a speaking order under Section 204 CrPC. The court noted that the absence of a requirement for recording reasons might be intentional, given the inbuilt guarantee for the magistrate to apply his mind.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that while issuing process under Section 204 CrPC, the magistrate must form an opinion that there is prima facie sufficient ground for proceeding but is not required to record reasons in a speaking order. The court emphasized that the application of judicial mind can be inferred from the record of the case, and the absence of a detailed speaking order does not invalidate the process issued. The revision petitions and the Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) should be put up before the learned Single Judges for disposal.

---