JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been directed against the order dated 07.10.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistate, 1st, Faizabad in Criminal Complaint Case No. 485/2003 (Srimati Urmila v. Ram Shanker Lal and others) (annexure-2) taking cognizance in the matter and summoning the petitioner under Sections 323, 147, 420, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and also the order dated 07.05.2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Faizabad (annexure-4) in Criminal Revision No. 241/2004 (Krishna Behari @ Chunnoo and others v. State of U.P. and others). 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after filing of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was treated to be a complaint, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and those of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter summoning order was passed on 07.10.2003. It is emphasized that the allegations against the petitioner have not been mentioned, even in brief, in this order and it is not ascertainable as to how the learned Magistrate reached to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against accused persons under the sections mentioned in the order. It is further contended that the order was passed in a routine and mechanical manner. The learned Sessions Judge also did not appreciate this manifest error committed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision on 07.05.2005. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate, however, maintained that on the basis of the allegations made against the petitioner prima facie offence was made out and there was sufficient material on record for summoning the accused. Therefore, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders. 5. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate, however, maintained that on the basis of the allegations made against the petitioner prima facie offence was made out and there was sufficient material on record for summoning the accused. Therefore, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders. 5. The summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate (contained in annexure-2) is extracted hereinbelow : “7-10-2003 iqdkj djkbZ x;hA ifjoknh mifLFkr gSA eSus ifjoknuh dks iwoZ frfFk ij lquk,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k ifjokn i=] ifjoknuh ds c;ku va0 /kkjk 200 n0 iz0 la0 o vU; izi=ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls vfHk;qDrx.k 1 rFkk 5 ds fo:) fopkj.k gsrq izFke n`’V;k /kkjk 323] 147] 420] 452] 504] 506 Hkk0 na0 fo0 dk vijk/k curk gSA vkns”k vfHk;qDrx.k 1 rFkk 5 dks fnukad 1-11-03 ds fy, tfj, lEeu ryc fd;k tkosA ifjokfnuh vko”;d iSjoh ,d lIrkg esa djsaAß 6. From the perusal of the order mentioned hereinabove it transpires that the learned Magistrate has made a mention only about the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other papers on record. He did not make any mention about the nature of papers or statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 CrP.C. He has simply mentioned that on the basis of the evidence on record a prima facie case is made out against accused Nos. 1 to 5 under Sections 323, 147, 420, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The entire order consists of only four sentences. The first two sentences pertain to calling of the case and presence of the complainant and the remaining two sentences relate to hearing of the complainant’s arguments, perusal of the complaint, statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other papers on record and summoning of the accused persons under the aforesaid sections having been found a prima facie case against them. There is neither any reference, even in brief, about the allegations made against the accused persons nor about the complainant supporting the allegations in respect of the offences of cheating (under Section 420 IPC), abusing (under Section 504 IPC), causing hurt after making house tresspass and threatening (under Sections 323, 452 and 506 IPC) and rioting (under Section 147 IPC). There is also not even a passing reference about the nature of the papers such as sale deed etc. in the order. There is also not even a passing reference about the nature of the papers such as sale deed etc. in the order. From the order of the revisional Court it appears that statements of two witnesses were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but in the aforementioned summoning order there is no reference at all about such statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. supporting the allegations. In the circumstances the only inescapable conclusion is that the learned Magistrate has not passed this order after applying his mind. It appears that he has passed this order in a routine and mechanical manner without applying his mind. The present age is of transparency and right to information. Any judicial order should not be passed in a slip shod manner. In respect of bail matters the Hon’ble Apex Court has recently observed in the case of Kalyan Chand Sarkar [2004 SCC (Cri)1977] and Chaman Lal’s case [ (2004)7 SCC 525 ], that a detailed examination of offence and elaborate documentation of merits of the case may not be undertaken but there is a need to indicate in the order the reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted. Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind. Similar principle has to be adhered to while passing the summoning order. It is not sufficient to mention that a prima facie case is made out. As discussed hereinbefore there is a need to indicate very briefly, in the order, the reasons for reaching to such a conclusion, so that it may appear that the order has been passed after application of mind. The learned Sessions Judge also did not consider this manifest error committed by the learned Magistrate. 7. Consequently the impugned order dated 07.10.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Faizabad in Criminal Complaint Case No. 485/2003 and the order dated 07.052005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Faizabad, in Revision No. 241/2004 are set aside. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad is directed to pass a fresh order in the above case in accordance with the provisions of law and the observations made hereinabove. 9. With this observation the petition is finally disposed of. Order Accordingly. ———