Judgment P.K.Sarkar, J. 1. This petition under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. is for quashing the order of cognizance dated 3.3.93 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (West) in G.R. Case No. 2/76. 2. The brief facts leading to the present application is that O.P. No. 2 Jagarnath Chowdhury instituted a case (G.R. 2/76) alleging that a dacoiry was committed in the night intervening 2nd and 3rd January, 1976, in his house and the petitioner-accused was identified during the commission of the alleged dacoity. It was further alleged that he heard the sound of foot-steps of some persons and saw in the light of torch used by the dacoits. In the meantime, four dacoits holding Farsas in their hands surrounded him and in this process, he identified the petitioner. The Police took up the investigation of the case and submitted a Final Report bearing No. 28 dated 3.6.76 was submitted showing the case to be maliciously false under Sec. 395, I.P.C. The informant O.P. No. 2 filed a protest-cum-complaint petition. An enquiry was made under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. and cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 30.4.81 under Section 395, I.P.C. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner filed a petition in this Court bearing Cr. Misc. No. 3087/81. On hearing the matter, the Court set aside the impugned order on 17.11.83 for fresh application of mind by the Trial Court. It is submitted that, thereafter, the Court without applying his mind passed another order dated 3.3.93 upholding the previous order. Hence, this application. 4. O.P. No. 2, however, did not file any counter-affidavit in this case. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted firstly that the order of cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is a mechanical order without applying his mind and secondly, the occurrence is dated 3.1.76 i.e. about twenty two years ago. So, no useful purpose will be served in prosecuting the case now. 6. As regards the first point, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the Police, who investigated the case, found the case as false under Sec. 395, I.P.C. and submitted Final Report and order for closure of the proceeding. The informant O.P. No. 2, thereafter, filed a protest petition and the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. Five witnesses were examined under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, thereafter, considered their evidence. The informant O.P. No. 2, thereafter, filed a protest petition and the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. Five witnesses were examined under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, thereafter, considered their evidence. He was not convinced with the evidence of those witnesses but took cognizance on the ground that within the limited scope under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. he cannot waive their evidences, Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 3087/91 quashed the order and directed the Court below to consider the matter afresh. The Court thereafter, considered the matter again on 3.3.93 and without giving any reasons simply observed that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Sec. 395, I.P.C. and there is sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The aforesaid order did not show any thing by which it can be held that after remand of the case by this Court for fresh consideration, the Court below applied his mind. He simply perused the facts already on record on the basis of which earlier the Court had a suspicion in the matter. Thus, this order can also be not sustained and deserves to be set aside. 7. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision , [Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. V/s. Special Judicial Magistrate and others). For convenience, the observation of the Apex Court can be mentioned below: 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 complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations as otherwise and then examine, if any, offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 8. Thus, it is necessary that the Court concerned should apply its mind carefully and scrutinise the evidence brought on record before him. Though, in the earlier order there was some discussion of evidence, but the subsequent order which is the order in question does not show by which it can be observed that the Court applied its mind after the case was remanded to the Court below for re-consideration. In that view, it is submitted that the order in question deserves to be set aside. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in M.M. Rajendran v. K. Ramkrishnan, , the Apex Court has held as follows: There is no discussion let alone a finding, whether the facts stated in the complaint even prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under Section 200 I.P.C. Does the complaint contain the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the appellant has not also been dealt with. The appellant had inter alia raised the question of limitation as well as the necessity of obtaining sanction for prosecution, those also have not been considered. Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is absolutely necessary that the witnesses examined must show that a prima facie case is made out against the accused person. It is further submitted that from the evidence on record, it will appear that out of the five witnesses examined, A.P.Ws. 1 did not identify the accused-petitioner and the other three A.P.W. who identified the accused and relations of the informant and A.P.W. 5 is the wife of the informant. In that view, it is submitted that the identification of the accused creates a doubt particularly when the petitioner is a co-villager and also considering the Police report where the Police did not find any case against the petitioner. 11. In that view, it is submitted that the identification of the accused creates a doubt particularly when the petitioner is a co-villager and also considering the Police report where the Police did not find any case against the petitioner. 11. I have carefully gone through the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the O.P.-State. It is true that the impugned order does not give any reason for coming to a conclusion regarding the re-considered view of the Court in taking cognizance against the petitioner. It simply refers that the Court concerned perused the petition and the statements of the witnesses including the complainant and found that there are sufficient ground for cognizance. Thus, the purpose for which the case was remitted back to the Court below for re-consideration is not fulfilled, and, thus, the order cannot be upheld. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that about 22 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence and perhaps, no useful purpose will be served by putting the accused in trial after such a long delay. It is further submitted that it is an established principle of law that in case of such delays, the proceeding should not be allowed to continue. It is true that the case is pending for a long time but the defence also contributed to this delay as the accused repeatedly came to this Court and the case was also earlier remanded to the Court below for reconsideration. 13. In view of the fact that the Court below in spite of specific direction of this Court, did not give any reason for coming to a conclusion for issue of summons against the accused-petitioner and passed the order, the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another (supra) appears fully applicable in this case and the order deserves to be quashed. The Police also after investigation found the case as mischievously false and directed for submission of Final Report. This coupled with the fact of long pendency of the matter also shows that no useful purpose will be served in allowing the case to continue. 14. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.3.93 passed in G.R Case No. 2/76 is quashed.