JUDGMENT 1. -Through this miscellaneous petition under section 482, Cr.P.C., petitioner Bhojraj Singh calls in question the order dated 19.10.1991 of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Raisinghnagar, whereby cognizance was taken against him for the offence under sections 302 & 120-B of IPC and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. 2. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that there is not an iota of evidence against the petitioner on which process could be issued. Pointing out that the learned Magistrate has not recorded any reason in his order to issue process, the reiterated that the order is not founded on any material whatsoever. He submitted that the impugned order should be quashed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to support the order. He pointed out that the police had given final report as there was no material against the petitioner connecting him with the crime. 4. The facts stated in the complaint lodged by Pritam Singh on 23.2.1988 are these. On the night intervening 2.11.1987 and 3.11.1987, Bhojraj Singh, SHO, Muklawa and other police officials entered the house of Harjeet Singh and made a search, but as they did not find anything objectionable in the search, they took away Resham Singh and Jeet Singh to the police station telling the family members that they would be released if Rs. 22,000/- were paid to Bhojraj Singh of they got a pistol recovered. Harjeet Singh, after he was freed, filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate against Bhojraj Singh to the Dy. S.P. Raisinghnagar. This irritated Bhojraj Singh and he implicated Jeet Singh and Resham Singh in a false case under section 25 of the Arms Act. After Resham Singh and Jeet Singh were released on bail, they tiled a criminal complaint against Bhojraj Singh and Mahendra Singh under sections 147, 218, 327, 351 1PC which was sent to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. This further enraged Bhojraj Singh. On 20.1.1988, Jeet Singh attended the Court date in the cases under section 25, Arms Act, and Bhojraj Singh and Bhoop Singh were also there in the Court precincts on that day. The case set up in the complaint is that in the Court campus Bhojraj Singh threatened Jeet Singh in the presence of some Advocates that he withdrew the case filed against him else he would be killed. The case set up in the complaint is that in the Court campus Bhojraj Singh threatened Jeet Singh in the presence of some Advocates that he withdrew the case filed against him else he would be killed. Jeet Singh, Resham Singh and Kartar Singh left for their village in a bus. Jeet Singh, who had alighted from the bus at 14 T.K. Bus-stand, was not seen alive thereafter. On 21.1.1988, on receiving a message, the relations of Jeet Singh rushed to the canal only to find the dead body of Jeet Singh. It was stated in the complaint that because of enmity Bhojraj Singh and Bhoop Ram have caused the death of Jeet Singh. This complaint was sent to the Circle Office, Raisinghnagar for investigation, who registered a case at No. 12/88, P.S. Muklawa. 5. After interrogating dozens of witnesses, the police submitted a final report. The learned Magistrate refused to accept the final report and passed the impugned order to the following effect:- 19-10-1991 odhy ifjoknh Jh lq[kiky flag mifLFkrA vfUre izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] cgl odhy ifjoknh lquh xbZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ c;kukr xokgku o bLrxklk ds voyksdu ls Hkkstjkt flag ,l0,p0vks0 o Hkwijke iq= c`tyky fo'uksbZ fuoklh mM+lj ds fo:) izFke n`"V;k vijk/k /kkjk 302] 120&ch Hkk0n0la0 dk cuuk ik;k tkrk gS] vfHk;qDrx.k Hkkstjkt flag o Hkwijke ds fo:) mDr vijk/k esa izlaKku fy;k tkrk gS] vfHk;qDrx.k tfj;s okjUV fxjQ~rkjh ,l0ih0 Jh xaxkuxj ds ekQZr ryc gks eqdnek ntZ jft0 gks i=koyh okLrs rLch vfHk;qDrx.k fn0 9-12-1991 dks is'k gksA ,l0Mh0@& " 6. It is obvious that in the order, the learned Magistrate has not recorded as to on what basis he was issuing process against the petitioner. What has been recorded is that having perused the complaint and the statements of the witnesses, the Magistrate was satisfied that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. 7. It is true that while issuing process, the Magistrate is not required to discuss the evidence elaborately, yet the order must indicate that he had applied his mind to the material on record. The order, impugned in this petition does not indicate as to on whose evidence the Magistrate was satisfied that there was prima facie case against the petitioner. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses. The order, impugned in this petition does not indicate as to on whose evidence the Magistrate was satisfied that there was prima facie case against the petitioner. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses. None of the witnesses interrogated by the police states that he had seen the petitioner causing the death of Jeet Singh or conspiring with Bhoop Ram to cause his death. The post-mortem report indicates that Jeet Singh had died of asphyxia which had occurred due to drowning. The Medical Officer who had conducted autopsy on the body of Jeet Singh did not find any injury on the person of Jeet Singh. It is, thus, obvious that the cause of death of Jeet Singh was asphyxia which had occurred due to drowning. 8. In the complaint it was stated that there was not enough water in the canal as to cause the death of a person by drowning. However, there is no material on record on which it can he said that there was such small quantity of water that Jeet Singh could not die of drowning. There is material on record that Jeet Singh was habituated to take liquor. The possibility, that Jeet Singh having consumed liquor went down side the canal and because of slip of his leg fell down in the canal, cannot be ruled out. The fact that there was no mark of injury on the person of Jeet Singh, goes to show that it was not a case of homicidal death. 9. In the complaint,some circumstances have been relied on. One of the circumstances is that on the date of occurrence that petitioner was also in the Court compound and he had threatened Jeet Singh that he withdrew the case filed against him else he would kill him. However, there is no evidence on this important circumstance. Even Resham Singh. who is said to be present in the Court compound at the time, the petitioner and Bhoop Ram were there, does not say that the petitioner had threatened Jeet Singh. Rather he says that he did not hear any talk between Jet Singh and the petitioner in the Court. Kartar Singh. who was present there in the Court compound also does not say that the petitioner had threatened Jeet Singh with dire consequences. Rather he says that he did not hear any talk between Jet Singh and the petitioner in the Court. Kartar Singh. who was present there in the Court compound also does not say that the petitioner had threatened Jeet Singh with dire consequences. There is no evidence of any of the Advocates stating that he had heard the petitioner giving threatening to Jeet Singh. Thus. on the first circumstance, stated in the complaint, there is no evidence. 10. The second circumstance relied on by the complainant is that the petitioner knew Jeet Singh yet he refused to identify him when he saw dead body of leel Singh outside the canal. It may be that Jeet Singh remained in custody of petitioner some one month hack but by that it cannot be inferred that the petitioner was hound to identify Jeet Singh. particularly when the dead body was taken out from the water. There is also no material on which it can be said that petitioner had meticulously seen the body. In any case, this by itself cannot he a circumstance on which it can be said that the petitioner could be involved in the murder of Jeet Singh. 11. The next circumstance is that Jeet Singh had filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner as he was kept in confinement and given beatings. On that ground alone without any other material, in my opinion. it cannot he even prima facie inferred that the petitioner had caused the death of Jeet Singh. 12. There is no other material on record on which the learned Magistrate could be justified in issuing process against the petitioner. The order is not sustainable in law. 13. Consequently. the petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******