JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order, dated 6-6-1986 whereby the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 34 of the Indian Police Act, 1861. The learned Magistrate on admission of the guilt of the petitioner held him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- which he has deposited under a receipt. In normal circumstances this court would not interfere more so under Section 482 Cr. PC with such an order. I Would not have interfered, but since the order passed by the learned Magistrate is absolutely lacunic I have no option but to interfere. The entire file of the learned Magistrate runs hardly in four pages of which the order is as under: 6&6&86 ,0ih0ih0mi0A ;g pkyku Fkkuk vkn'kZ uxj ls vfHk;qDr lwokjke ds 34 P. Act esa is'k fd;k] ntZ jftLV~j gksA vfHk;qDr lwokjke dks /kkjk 34 P. Act dk ekSf[kd tqeZ lkjka{k lquk;k x;k rks vfHk;qDr us LosPNkiwoZd tqeZ Lohdkj fd;kA vfHk;qDr }kjk /kkjk 34 P.Act dk tqeZ Lohdkj djus ij mls }kjk 25@& iPphl :i;s ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gSA tqekZuk tek djk;k x;kA jlhn nh xbZA i=koyh Qsly lqekj gksdj nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA gLrk{kj " It is true that it is not incumbent upon the Magistrate to frame a formal charge against the accused in a case which is being tried as a summon case but it is absolutely essential that the Magistrate summarises the ingredients of the offence and read over to the accused. In fact the judicial pronouncements are to the effect that though not essential yet it is proper for a Magistrate to frame a charge or summarise the ingredients of the offence and read them over to the accused. The allegations against the petitioner were that he was misbehaving with the ladies after he had taken drinks outside Ankur Cinema. The order quoted above only shows that: ekSf[kd tqeZ lkjka'k lquk;k x;kA " but what was the same there is no record about it. I have reason to believe that the learned Magistrate must have proceeded in reading the same but the grievance has been made by the accused only because no normal proceedings drawn and his signatures obtained. The order quoted above only shows that: ekSf[kd tqeZ lkjka'k lquk;k x;kA " but what was the same there is no record about it. I have reason to believe that the learned Magistrate must have proceeded in reading the same but the grievance has been made by the accused only because no normal proceedings drawn and his signatures obtained. Since the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the medical report and other documents, I refrain from giving any comments since I am remanding the case to the learned Magistrate. He will go through the allegations carefully and will proceed against the accused in accordance with law. He will not, in any manner, be influenced by this order and will come to his findings independently. 2. Consequently the petition is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 6-6-86 is set aside and the case is remanded for proceeding in accordance with law. *******