JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—The present criminal misc. application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of Dr. B.K. Agrawal and four others, whereby they have prayed that the order dated 22.9.08 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I, Agra in criminal complaint case No. 1111 of 2007, Raish Pal Singh vs. B.K. Agrawal and others be set aside and quashed. 2. The facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2, Raish Pal Singh filed a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. against the applicants on 9.5.06 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Agra which was registered as criminal case No. 607 of 2006. It appears that the said case was ultimately transferred to the Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra and as a consequence, it was re-numbered as criminal case No. 1111 of 2007. The impugned order has been passed by learned A.C.J.M. Ist, Agra on 22.9.08. 3. It has been alleged by the opposite party No. 2, the complainant, in his complaint that he is an ex- student of Raja Balwant Singh College, Agra. He was also employed there as the librarian and now has retired. He is a well-wisher of the said institution and is sentimentally attached to it. It has further been alleged that all the petitioners, when they were posted on various posts in the said institution, adopted corrupt practices and by misusing their official positions they have usurped various funds of the said college. It has been also alleged that the applicant No. 1 Dr. B.K. Agrawal was a dismissed lecturer of R.B.S College. He had concealed this fact and applied for the post of Principal in the R.B.S. College Agra. The other accused persons also knew this fact. Applicant No. 1 in order to grab the post of the Principal of the said institution by adopting foul means kept in dark the District Judge Agra who was ex- officio President of the Managing Committee of the college. All the applicants by playing fraud succeeded in getting the applicant No. 1 appointed on the post of Principal of R.B.S. College. It has also been alleged in the said complaint that applicant No. 4, Raja Anirudh Pal Singh was the Vice-President of the Managing Committee up to 8.2.2000. All the applicants by playing fraud succeeded in getting the applicant No. 1 appointed on the post of Principal of R.B.S. College. It has also been alleged in the said complaint that applicant No. 4, Raja Anirudh Pal Singh was the Vice-President of the Managing Committee up to 8.2.2000. Instead of abstaining himself from further meetings of the Managing Committee, he called a meeting on 10.9.2000 in the capacity of In-charge President and by adopting foul means, succeeded in getting applicant No. 1 appointed as the Principal of the college. Applicant No. 2, 3 and 5 had helped the applicant No. 1 and 4 a lot in this foul play. It has also been alleged in the complaint that Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, sponsored an scheme in the name and style of Cost of Cultivation. It has further been alleged in the complaint that applicant No. 1 in the capacity of the Principal of the institution got constructed a 192 mtrs. long boundary and in this construction work he had usurped huge amount of money of the college by drawing the same from various funds allotted to the institution. Allegations have also been levelled to the effect that all the applicants had manufactured various forged documents in order to swindle the funds of the college. The opposite party No. 2 had gone to police station Hariparvat, Agra and tried to lodge an FIR in the matter but his report was not lodged. Thereafter, he sent his complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra by speed post on 24.4.06 but in vain. When the applicants came to know about the above mentioned efforts of opp. party No.2 they called him in the chamber of applicant No. 1 on 2.5.06 at about 12 hours. In the chamber applicant No. 1 was present along with applicant No. 2 Roshan Singh and applicant No. 3 Dr. D.P.S. Bhati. One witness Ram Pratap Sharma was also present there. When the opposite party No. 2 entered the Principal’s chamber applicant No. 1 B.K. Agrawal started abusing him and on protest applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 threatened him by saying that they would cut his body into pieces and throw the same in river Yamuna. A few other persons had also witnessed the occurrence. When the opposite party No. 2 entered the Principal’s chamber applicant No. 1 B.K. Agrawal started abusing him and on protest applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 threatened him by saying that they would cut his body into pieces and throw the same in river Yamuna. A few other persons had also witnessed the occurrence. When the opposite party No. 2 failed to get any help from the police he filed the complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 4. The complaint was registered. The opposite party No. 2 was examined under Section 200, Cr.P.C. CW-1 Ram Prakash Sharma, C.W.-2 Jitendra Nath Singh and CW-3 Jawahar Singh were also examined in the case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant case, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 22.9.08 whereby he summoned all the applicants under Sections 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 504 and 506, IPC. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the above summoning order the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed. 7. Notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2. 8. The opposite party No. 2 Raish Pal Singh has put in appearance through his learned counsel. State of U.P. is represented by learned AGA. 9. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. 10. I have examined the allegations levelled against the applicants by opposite party No. 2. One of the allegations which have been levelled against the applicants is that applicant No. 1 was dismissed from the post of Lecturer of R.B.S. College, Agra and by concealing this fact he applied for the post of Principal of the same college and with the connivance of other applicants he succeeded in grabbing the said post. 11. Keeping in view the nature of this allegation, it is evident that there should be a documentary proof showing that applicant No. 1 was dismissed from the post of Lecturer. But no such dismissal order has been produced by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 before the learned Magistrate nor any application was moved before him with the prayer that the dismissal order be summoned from the office of the college. But no such dismissal order has been produced by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 before the learned Magistrate nor any application was moved before him with the prayer that the dismissal order be summoned from the office of the college. This dismissal order is the main basis relying upon which the opposite party No. 2 has based his allegation of fraudulent grabbing of the post of the Principal of the said college by applicant No. 1 no attempt has been made to procure the same. The learned Magistrate should have, at least, examined whether such a dismissal order really exists or not. Where there is existence of a documentary proof of a material fact which goes to the root of the allegation, the same must have been got summoned or filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2. The learned Magistrate had totally failed to realise and appreciate the importance of the alleged dismissal order. Opposite party No. 2 has very easily said in his complaint as well as in his statement under Section 200, Cr.P.C. that he knows that the applicant No. 1 was dismissed from the post of Lecturer but nowhere he has said that on which date or by which authority the said applicant was dismissed and on what charges? Opposite party No. 2 has also not stated anywhere as to under what circumstances he was finding himself unable in filing the dismissal order. Not giving due importance by the Magistrate to this non-production of a very material documentary evidence while passing the impugned summoning order, the learned Magistrate has acted in a most irresponsible manner. 12. Various allegations have been levelled by opposite party No. 2 against all the applicants in which he has said that the applicants had overstepped their authorities and by doing so they got applicant No. 1 appointed as the Principal of the college by playing fraud but nowhere opposite party No. 2 had disclosed the source wherefrom he got these informations or how he has got access to the proceedings of the meetings in which the alleged decisions were taken. 13. No details regarding misappropriation of funds has been given in the complaint by opposite party No. 2 regarding the cost of cultivation scheme, the construction of boundary wall of the college and Animal Husbandry expenditures. 13. No details regarding misappropriation of funds has been given in the complaint by opposite party No. 2 regarding the cost of cultivation scheme, the construction of boundary wall of the college and Animal Husbandry expenditures. Only vague allegations have been levelled in the complaint and the statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not cared to elicit the real facts by cross examining the complainant on these points. It appears that the learned Magistrate has believed all that as gospel truth which the complainant has deposed before him. It also appears that learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that in ex-parte proceedings the possibility of giving false statement by a complainant and witnesses is not uncommon. Probably he is not aware of the responsibility the law has cast upon him. 14. In (2008) 5 SCC 668 , Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and others the Supreme Court has said that where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. Referring another case (1998) 5 SCC 749 , Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate the Apex Court has said that summoning of an accused in a criminal is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that 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. 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 or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 15. 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 or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 15. In the instant case I am of the opinion that learned Magistrate has totally failed to observe the above-mentioned principles of law. 16. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. 17. In the instant case the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The facts of the present case clearly indicate that the present criminal proceeding pending before the learned lower Court is manifestly attended with malafide and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to personal grudge. 18. On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the proceeding pending before the learned lower Court should be set aside and quashed. 19. 18. On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the proceeding pending before the learned lower Court should be set aside and quashed. 19. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Agra in complaint case No. 1111 of 2007 (Raish Pal Singh v B.K. Agarwal and others) is hereby set aside and quashed. ————