Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the summoning order and complaint proceedings were liable to be quashed on the ground that the order was mechanical and passed without application of judicial mind, and whether a prima facie case existed to proceed.
Analysis: At the stage of passing an order under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate is not required to undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence. The limited inquiry is whether the complaint and supporting material disclose a prima facie case for proceeding further. The complaint in the present matter was supported by the inspection report and related documentary material, and the allegations disclosed offences under the Companies Act. The summoning order was a reasoned typed order and could not be treated as a mere proforma order or as an abuse of process of law.
Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order failed, and the application for quashing was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings were held to be maintainable at the summoning stage, and no ground was found for interference under the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: At the summoning stage under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate need only ascertain the existence of a prima facie case and is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence.