K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) ORIGINAL accused Mulchand Rughalal Baheti by this Misc. Criminal Application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has moved this Court inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated against him by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Ahmedabad, pursuant to the complaint filed before it by the opponent Nobatram Chaudhari, for the alleged offences punishable under Sec. 420 of I. P. Code, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1166 of 1985. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter was called out, the learned Advocate for the petitioner was absent. Despite the fact that Chopdar was sent, he was not available. Under the circumstances, with the assistance of learned A. P. P. , Mr. S. T. Mehta, this Court has heard and decided this matter. This Court was required to do so because having once obtained the stay and thereby forestalled the proceeding, before the trial court, right from the year 1985, the petitioner cannot be permitted to delay the hearing of this Misc. Criminal Application at whims and convenience of his learned advocate, taking the Court proceedings as if on joy-ride. Under such circumstances, this Court is not expected to be at the mercy of the learned Advocate to hear and decide the case as and when he makes himself available. The cases particularly wherein interim stay is obtained, it is the bounden duty of the concerned learned advocate to be at the back and call of the Court for hearing and deciding the case whenever his matter is called out or if he has some genuine difficulty then to make some alternative arrangement for final hearing and/or to seek adjournment on some such ground which is appealable to the Court. In criminal cases the time being the essence, it is the most important factor to be reconsidered, as everyday delay was bound to weaken, rather further weaken and ultimately destroy the prosecution case for the simple reason that in the course of time the evidence may get lost and/ or suffer serious credibility set-back on any count. This in a way is quite unjust and prejudicial to the aggrieved complainant, rather in a given case antethesis of the justice. This in a way is quite unjust and prejudicial to the aggrieved complainant, rather in a given case antethesis of the justice. ( 3 ) TURNING to the facts of the case, in substance, it is the case of the complainant that he is a Manager of M/s. Raghuvir Prasad Vijaykumar and other firms, while the accused Mulchand Rughalal Baheti is a cloth merchant doing his business in Revdi bazar, Ahmedabad. Further according to the complainant, he was knowing the accused since last many years because of business relations. On one night, the accused visited his house saying that as he was near by his house, he accordingly thought to just visit and meet him. During the course of the conversation accused stated that he was having 2-3 firms in Ahmedabad. He further said to the complainant that because he (complainant) was having business outside Ahmedabad, many a times he might not be getting prompt payment, and accordingly, instead of having business relations outside he should have such relations with him. Further, according to the complainant, on hearing this talk he was swayed to trust him and accordingly asked the accused to come to his shop. On the next day, the accused went to the shop of the complainant and purchased cloth in all totalling about Rs. 37,038. 78 p. which despite repeated demands till the date of filing of the complaint was not paid to him. On the basis of these allegations, he filed a complaint before the learned metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 17, Ahmedabad, who in his turn issued bailable warrant against the petitioner-accused herein giving rise to the present Misc. Criminal application. ( 4 ) PERUSED the Misc. Criminal Application and the complaint filed by opponent no. 1. Heard the learned A. P. P. in absence of the learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused. In absence of the learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused highlighting and illustrating as to how indeed the facts alleged in the complaint do not prima facie constitute the offence, it is not possible to straightway allow this petition quashing the complaint and proceedings taken up pursuant thereto against him. In absence of the learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused highlighting and illustrating as to how indeed the facts alleged in the complaint do not prima facie constitute the offence, it is not possible to straightway allow this petition quashing the complaint and proceedings taken up pursuant thereto against him. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without prejudice to his contentions, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Court of learned metropolitan Magistrate on or before 30th September, 1996, where it will be open to him to plead and show cause that the facts alleged in the complaint do not prima facie disclose any offence and accordingly, the proceedings instituted and process issued pursuant thereto against him being ex-facie illegal, the same be quashed and set aside dropping the criminal proceedings instituted against him. For this purpose, it is indeed not necessary that the petitioner-accused should personally remain present before the learned Magistrate as it will be open to him to make appropriate submissions through his learned Advocate. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 2206 , we also make it clear that "the order issuing process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused," and in this regard if he so satisfies the learned magistrate. ( 5 ) INCIDENTALLY, we quite understand that these days, many a times, false frivolous and vexatious complaints are filed against the innocent persons abusing the process of law to satisfy the malicious urge of personal vengeance. Accordingly, on some such manipulated accusations against innocent citizen false complaints are filed making them to rush to the trial Court on the returnable date and thereafter again and again on every adjourned dates, which many a times can be from quite a long distance including that from the other States at long distances as well. This certainly causes great deal of physical, mental and financial hardships, inconvenience and embarassment to the accused, which in a way can be described as an uncalled for pre-trial punishment more particularly in cases where the accused gets ultimately acquitted. This certainly causes great deal of physical, mental and financial hardships, inconvenience and embarassment to the accused, which in a way can be described as an uncalled for pre-trial punishment more particularly in cases where the accused gets ultimately acquitted. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence and pursuant thereto even while issuing the summons, in the first instance instead of playing role of mere post office, must carefully screen and scrutinize the complaint and find out for himself whether in fact it contains any germs or the ingredients of offence making out prima facie case to issue process, and thereafter, even if it makes out prima facie case, then even, it should be quite discreet in exercising its further judicial discretion while issuing the type of process. Accordingly, in the second instance, the learned Magistrate depending upon the facts and curcumstances of the case, first of all, should see to it that while issuing the process, the accused in the first place, is informed that on returnable date of summons, he may if he so desires instead of himself remaining present before the court may appear through his learned Advocate. This is with a view to see that if according to the accused the complaint does not disclose prima facie offence, the learned Advocate appearing for him may satisfy the learned Magistrate accordingly and case comes to an end there and then only, which would save the accused from unwarranted hardships and inconvenience of attending the Court; as stated above. In case, despite service of the aforesaid summons, if accused neglects to appear before the Court despite the option offered to him to appear through his learned advocate then in that case, if the Court for any just, valid reason does not want to give further extend the benefit of discretion to appear through learned Advocate, may insist upon personal attendance of accused and issue fresh process accordingly to the accused. In fact, the view that this Court is taking is duly borne out by the provision made in this regard in Code itself when we look at the Form No. 1 under sec. 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which pertains to Summons to an accused person appearing in the Second Schedule of the Code which reads as under :-