Criminal process requires application of mind: summoning and Section 251 notice were quashed for lack of supporting documents.

A subsequent petition in inherent jurisdiction was held maintainable because the earlier quashing challenge had been withdrawn and a fresh cause of action arose when notice under Section 251 CrPC was again framed without the relied-upon documents. The Court held that summoning and issuance of notice require application of mind to the complaint and supporting material; a mechanical order, especially on a proforma, is unsustainable. As the inspection report and other foundational documents were not on record when cognizance was taken and notice was issued, the summoning order and Section 251 notice were liable to be quashed for non-application of mind and resulting prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the subsequent petition under the inherent jurisdiction was maintainable in view of the earlier quashing petition; (ii) whether the summoning order and the notice framed under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were vitiated for want of supporting documents and non-application of mind.

Issue (i): whether the subsequent petition under the inherent jurisdiction was maintainable in view of the earlier quashing petition.

Analysis: The earlier petition had been withdrawn and the criminal complaint proceedings had continued thereafter. A fresh cause of action arose when the notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was framed again in the absence of the relied upon documents. The bar against reopening an earlier refused challenge did not apply because the Court was examining the situation as it stood at the later stage of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The subsequent petition was maintainable and the objection to maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the summoning order and the notice framed under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were vitiated for want of supporting documents and non-application of mind.

Analysis: The complaint relied upon an inspection report and other supporting documents, but those materials were not filed with the complaint and were still absent when cognizance was taken and notice was framed. The Court held that summoning and framing of notice require application of mind to the complaint and the supporting material, and that a mechanical or perfunctory order, particularly one passed on a pre-formatted proforma, does not satisfy that standard. Since the basic documents were not on record for a long period, the impugned orders reflected non-application of mind and caused prejudice.

Conclusion: The summoning order and the notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were liable to be quashed for non-application of mind.

Final Conclusion: The complaint proceedings failed at the threshold because the foundational material was not before the trial court when cognizance was taken and notice was framed, and the petitioners obtained relief against the impugned criminal process.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summons case, cognizance and issuance of process require the court to examine the complaint along with the supporting material and record a clear application of mind; a mechanical summoning or notice order passed without the relied upon documents is unsustainable and may be quashed in inherent jurisdiction.

---