S.K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s. Pepsi Food's case1, propounded that "summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It, is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complaint to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused."
(2.) IN view of aforesaid judicial precedent laid down by the Apex Court, I proceed to consider the controversy posed before me for adjudication in the instant revisions. First some facts. A complaint instituted by complainant non -petitioner No.2 against the petitioners under Sections 469, 505, 500 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Beawar, was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to Police Station Beawar City on September 1, 1994. The Police Station Beawar City on Sept. 7, 1994 registered FIR No. 196/94 and investigation commenced, sum and substance of the allegations made in the complaint was that the accused petitioners entered into a conspiracy to defame the complainant and forged a "complaint letter" addressed to Higher Education Minister Rajasthan in the name of fictitious sender 'Harish Kumar Satlani'. This forged letter was communicated to Ugam Raj Mehta M.L.A. and to all newspapers. In the said forged letter certain defamatory statements were made against the complainant which were false and calculated to defame the complaint.
(3.) POLICE station Beawar City on October 31, 1994 submitted Final Report on the ground that original letter was not made available by the complainant and from the investigation no cognizable case made out. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Beawar did not accept the F.I.R. and vide order dated July 31, 1995 directed fresh investigation in the matter.;