JUDGMENT :- 1. Criminal Revision Application No.143 is presented by the original accused nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Complaint No.4 of 2002, presented by respondent no.1 to the court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.4, at Nagpur. Criminal Revision Application No.268 of 2006 is presented by the original complainant Riyazuddin raising exception to the order passed by the 7th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 10/7/2006, whereby accused nos.3 to 5 have been discharged from Criminal complaint No.4 of 2002 and the proceedings in the said criminal case was ordered to be dismissed as against them. The complainant/respondent no.1 herein presented complaint against five accused complaining commission of offence punishable under Sections 193, 195, 465, 469, read with Section 34, 109 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended in the complaint by the complainant that he is a Hanafi Sunni Muslim and is a social worker and well known spiritual leader. The allegations in the complaint are stated in para no.3, wherein it is alleged that as a result of conspiracy hatched by the accused some false and fabricated documents are brought into existence. On the basis of said false and fabricated documents, it is alleged that by giving money to complainant's witness no.1, published material in the nature of insult to Islam religion. It is contended that on the basis of these false and fabricated documents, accused nos.2 and 3 at the instigation of accused no.1, reported the matter to the police and were instrumental in getting a complaint lodged against the complainant on 22/9/2010. As a result of information lodged by accused nos.2 and 3, crime No.313 of 2001 was registered against the complainant and the investigation was carried further. It is contended that the fabricated documents are in the custody of the accused and as a result of the complaint lodged, the reputation of the complainant was lowered in the society. As such it is contended that the accused are liable to be punished for the offences alleged against them. The complainant also prayed in the complaint for referring the said complaint to police station Tahsil for thorough investigation and it was also prayed that the accused persons be called for and punished according to law. 2. After receiving the complaint, initially the Magistrate did not find any reason to proceed against the accused. The complainant also prayed in the complaint for referring the said complaint to police station Tahsil for thorough investigation and it was also prayed that the accused persons be called for and punished according to law. 2. After receiving the complaint, initially the Magistrate did not find any reason to proceed against the accused. The Magistrate recorded finding in the order passed initially by him on 18/2/2002 that there is no sufficient material to proceed against the accused. There is not a single document placed on record to substantiate the contentions as regards creation of false and fabricated documents by the accused. As such the Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the complaint. The order passed by the Magistrate on 18/2/2002 was subjected to challenge in criminal revision application No.237 of 2002 by the complainant. The revisional court, after considering the rival contentions, was pleased to allow the revision application and it was directed to the Magistrate to decide and adjudicate the question of maintainability of the complaint in the light of observations made in the judgment and pass a legal and logical order according to the provisions of law. The order passed by the Sessions Judge in criminal revision application was a subject matter of challenge in Criminal Application No.143 of 2003. At the time of admission hearing, this court on 9th October, 2003, granted ‘Rule’, however, it was further clarified in the order that the issuance of rule would not inhibit the learned Magistrate from proceeding further in the light of observations made in the impugned judgment of the revisional court. 3. The Magistrate accordingly took up the matter for consideration and directed reference of the complaint to the police authorities for the purpose of investigation as contemplated by Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further directed to the police authorities to submit report within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. The order was passed by the Magistrate on 15/11/2003. It further transpires that the report of investigation was received by the Magistrate on 15/1/2004. It was further directed to the police authorities to submit report within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. The order was passed by the Magistrate on 15/11/2003. It further transpires that the report of investigation was received by the Magistrate on 15/1/2004. However, in the year 2006, the Magistrate, on finding that he cannot concur with the report of the police investigation, directed recording of the statement of the complainant and on perusal of the statement of the complainant proceeded to issue summons to accused nos.1 and 2 to answer the charge in respect of commission of offence under Section 465, 469, 120(B) and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas accused nos.3,4 and 5 were summoned to answer charge punishable under Section 465, 469, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The order directing issuance of process was issued by the Judicial Magistrate (FC), Nagpur, court no.4, on 13/2/2006. 4. The order passed by the Magistrate was a subject matter of challenge at the instance of accused nos.3, 4 and 5 in Criminal Revision Application No.386 of 2006 and 440 of 2006. Both the revision applications tendered by the original accused nos.3,4 and 5 were taken up for consideration by 7th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 10/7/2006 and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the revision applications and order passed by the Magistrate directing issuance of process against accused nos.3 to 5 came to be quashed and set aside. Criminal Revision Application No.268/2006 is directed against the order passed by the 7th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 10/7/2006 at the instance of the complainant. 5. There is some chequered history of the litigation, which is also required to be noted. The complainant had presented a Reg.Civil Suit No.926 of 1999 contending therein that preaching and practices of accused no.1 have hurt the feelings of Sunni Muslim community. In the suit, it was prayed for issuance of decree of perpetual injunction restraining accused no.1 and his followers from claiming themselves as belonging to Muslim faith. The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Judgment and order dated 17/8/1999 by 6th Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Nagpur. In the suit, it was prayed for issuance of decree of perpetual injunction restraining accused no.1 and his followers from claiming themselves as belonging to Muslim faith. The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Judgment and order dated 17/8/1999 by 6th Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Nagpur. The complainant presented first Appeal No.448 of 1990, however, the same came to be dismissed on 13/12/1999 by 6th Additional District Judge, Nagpur. A Second appeal No.119/2000 was presented by the complainant, which also came to be dismissed on 14/3/2001. On 6/1/1999, the complainant lodged First information Report bearing No.3004 of 1999 under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code against one Murabbi Iliyasbhai. In a Criminal Writ Petition No.76 of 1999, the complainant prayed for impleadment of accused no.1 as an accused in the said crime. However, the Criminal Writ petition came to be rejected by the Division Bench of this court on 5/4/1999. The complainant again presented a Criminal Complaint Case No.1310 of 2000 against accused no.1 in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sections 295 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the offence in view of the order passed on 7/2/2002. As such the Criminal Revision Application No.191 of 2002 came to be presented by the complainant, which also came to be dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 31/7/2003. In the background of First Information Report lodged by the complainant against one Murabbi Iliyasbhai in FIR No.3004 of 1999, it appears that the accused nos.3 and 4 lodged First Information Report bearing No.313 of 2001 on 22/9/2001, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had given them a letter for publication in their newspaper 'ALMEEZAN'. The said letter allegedly contains inflammable material. During the enquiry it was found that the matter was not written by the complainant and a reports in that regard as directed under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. were presented. After passing discharge order in said criminal case, the complainant filed a fresh complaint against accused nos.1 to 5 and they were arrested in Criminal Case No.313 of 2002 registered against them. As stated above, the Magistrate dealing with the complaint initially had passed an order of dismissal of the complaint. Further course of events leading to presentation of this Revision Application is narrated as above. 6. As stated above, the Magistrate dealing with the complaint initially had passed an order of dismissal of the complaint. Further course of events leading to presentation of this Revision Application is narrated as above. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri S.V. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Shashibhushan Wahane, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.143 of 2003 and Shri R.S. Parsodkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs.I.L. Bodade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no.4 in Criminal Revision No.268 of 2006. 7. Shri Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has vehemently contended that in the complaint lodged by the complainant a prayer is made only for referring to complaint for investigation to the police authorities. It was the responsibility of the Magistrate before issuing order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after remand of the matter by the court of Sessions with direction, to satisfy himself as regards availability of material constituting an offence for proceeding against the accused. It is only after reaching satisfaction of the Magistrate that the complaint discloses commission of offence by the accused, it would be permissible for the Magistrate to pass further orders. Even if the Magistrate chooses to direct investigation by police as contemplated by Section 156(3) of the Code, he has to first of all satisfy himself as regards availability of some material to proceed against the accused. It is contended that on mere perusal of the complaint it cannot be said that a case is made out even for calling report of police under Section 156(3) of Code. There are absolutely no allegations contained in the complaint constituting an offence as alleged against the accused. The learned counsel contends that considering all these relevant aspects the Magistrate dealing with the matter initially proceeded to dismiss the complaint in view of the order passed on 18/2/2002. While considering the revision application tendered by the complainant, the revisional court directed the Magistrate to decide and adjudicate the question of maintenability of the complaint in the light of the observations made in the judgment and then to proceed to pass legal and logical order in accordance with the provisions of law. While considering the revision application tendered by the complainant, the revisional court directed the Magistrate to decide and adjudicate the question of maintenability of the complaint in the light of the observations made in the judgment and then to proceed to pass legal and logical order in accordance with the provisions of law. The Magistrate while passing the order directing investigation by the police has not dealt with the aspect as regards maintenability of the complaint. The learned Magistrate has misread the interim order passed by this court while admitting the criminal revision application. The initial order directing police investigation as contemplated by Section 156(3) is itself bad in law. 8. It is further contended that the application tendered by the complainant seeking investigation at the hands of police is itself not entertainable unless it is demonstrated that there was any report made to the police. Reporting the matter to the police is the precondition for initiation of proceedings by way of presentation of a complaint to the court, that should be generally adhered to unless exceptional circumstances warranting dispensing with requirement are pointed out. The learned counsel has further contended that the report of the investigation by the police was received by the court and perusal of such report tendered by the police does not make out any case against the accused. In these circumstances, it was logical and proper for the court to dismiss the complaint. However, the Magistrate chose to disagree with the police report and proceeded to direct issuance of process against the accused. No doubt, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the police report and is entitled to reach his own conclusions after scrutiny of the record produced before him. It is contended that in the event of Magistrate exhibiting his disagreement with police report it was/is obligatory for him to record reasons for his disagreement and thereafter proceed to direct issuance of process. It is contended that in the instant matter the learned Magistrate has not recorded the reasons for his disagreement with the police report and as such the order of issuance of process against the accused is bad in law. The another ground of attack by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that Magistrate has misconceived the police report and made erroneous observations in the impugned order. The another ground of attack by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that Magistrate has misconceived the police report and made erroneous observations in the impugned order. He further contends that in the event of the Magistrate deciding to disagree with the police report, it was incumbent upon him to follow the procedure as laid down in the Code. However, on any eventuality it was not permissible for him to record the statement of the complainant and relying upon such a statement direct issuance of process against the accused. It is contended that on receipt of police report, the Magistrate, on perusal of the papers of investigation, may either proceed to direct issuance of process or may postpone the issuance of process and call upon the complainant to produce his evidence. In the instant matter, as the Magistrate had at initial stage directed the investigation by police, there was no cognizance taken by the Magistrate. After receipt of the police report, the complainant presented a protest petition. The Magistrate, however, proceeded to record his statement, which in effect is a reproduction of contains of protest petition. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in taking cognizance and directing issuance of process is erroneous. It has also been brought to my notice that the order of issuance of process by the Magistrate was subjected to challenge in a separate Criminal Revision Application tendered by accused nos.3 to 5. The learned court of Sessions on consideration of the contentions raised by both the parties was pleased to quash the order issued by the Magistrate issuing process against accused nos.3 to 5. Once the criminal complaint is quashed as against accused nos.3 to 5, it cannot be allowed to be proceeded against accused nos.1 and 2. Following the principle of parity the instant revision application also needs to be allowed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant has supported the order passed by the Magistrate in directing issuance of process. It is contended that the merits and demerits of the contentions raised in the complaint cannot be a matter of enquiry at the stage of issuance of process. It is immaterial for consideration of the matter to consider as to whether the case is likely to end in conviction or acquittal. It is contended that the merits and demerits of the contentions raised in the complaint cannot be a matter of enquiry at the stage of issuance of process. It is immaterial for consideration of the matter to consider as to whether the case is likely to end in conviction or acquittal. It is sufficient if it is demonstrated that the allegations contained in the complaint discloses commission of offence. It is contended that the material placed on record by the police as well as on consideration of the statement of the complainant, the Magistrate was justified in directing issuance of process. It is also contended that in a separate revision application tendered to this court being Criminal Revision Application No.268 of 2006, the order passed by the court of Sessions directing quashment of the proceedings against accused nos.3 to 5 is called in question. It is contended that the order passed by the court of Sessions while dealing with the revision application tendered by accused nos.3 to 5 is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Shri S.V. Manohar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that it was not open for the Magistrate to direct the police to enquire into the matter by invoking provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code without satisfying himself that the complainant has approached the police authorities before making a request for reference of the complaint to police. It is essential for a person to invoke the provisions of Section 154 of the Code before he can take recourse to the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). The provisions of Section 156(3) are consequential upon a default of a police officer failing to comply with the requirements of Section 154 of the Code to the prejudice of the aggrieved person or the complainant, as the case may be. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in a reported judgment in the matter of Mr.Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani and ors. ..vs.. State of Mah. and ors., reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 244, has considered this question and has expressed the view that no straitjacket formula can be laid down in that regard. The rule is not free from exception. It is also observed that there may be cases wherein strict compliance with the provisions of Section 154 and 156(3) may not be insisted upon. The rule is not free from exception. It is also observed that there may be cases wherein strict compliance with the provisions of Section 154 and 156(3) may not be insisted upon. However, the court has also observed that an averement that the police were approached and have failed to act or why the applicant has chosen to directly approach the Court for issuance of direction under Section 156(3) would be somewhat necessary, to be mentioned in the complaint. The relevant observations are found in paragraph no.47 of the judgment. Those are quoted below. “47. Particularly in light of the facts of the cases where the question has been referred to us, we do not see any reason to say that it would be unfair, unjust or in any way prejudicial to hold that the complainants concerned should have invoked the provisions of Section 154 of the Code before invoking the powers of the Court under Section 156 (3) of the Code. We would certainly hasten to add that this cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition of law or a straitjacket formula applicable to all cases uniformly, without reference to the facts and circumstances of a given case. This is a rule which is not free of exception. In other words, there can be cases where strict compliance to the provisions of Section 154(1) and (3) in their entirety may not be insisted upon by the Court. This will be the case where heinous crime is committed and despite intimation to the police, the police failed to take action forthwith and/or cases where there is likelihood of crucial material evidence being destroyed, damaged and/or tampered with to the prejudice of the complainant. In such cases, the Court may have to entertain an application under Section 156(3) without compliance of Section 154(3) but still an averement that the police were approached and have failed to act or why the applicant has chosen to directly approach the Court for issuance of direction under Section 156(3) would be somewhat necessary, to be mentioned in the complaint.” 11. In the instant matter, the offence alleged is not of such a nature wherein immediate action is warranted and that there was a likelihood of crucial material evidence being destroyed if no prompt steps are taken. In the instant matter, the offence alleged is not of such a nature wherein immediate action is warranted and that there was a likelihood of crucial material evidence being destroyed if no prompt steps are taken. There are also no averement in the complaint that the complainant has at any point of time approached the police prior to approaching the court. It appears that the complainant has directly approached the court without lodging information with the police as contemplated by Section 154 of the Code. The Magistrate, therefore, ought to have exercised caution in proceeding further in the matter. The complainant had not made out a case for making an exception to the general rule of lodging information with the police prior to the approach of the complainant to the court. Therefore, the question of desirability of the Magistrate in directing police investigation is questionable. 12. It is to be noted that the police have reported after investigation that no case is made out for proceeding further in the matter. The Magistrate, however, chose to differ with the police report and proceeded to direct issuance of process against the accused. It is contended that in such eventuality it was necessary for the Magistrate to record reasons in respect of his disagreement with the police report. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon few judgments of this court contends that in the absence of reasons in respect of disagreement by the Magistrate with the police report, the impugned order passed by the Magistrate against the accused shall have to be treated as bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. 13. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Vaidya Kuldip Raj Kohil ..vs..State of Mah. and anr., reported in 2002(2) Mh.L.J.830. Relying upon the observations of the court made in paragraph no.8 of the judgment that “ The learned Magistrate did not give any reason for differing from the Police Report. There was no allegation of forgery. …...” The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the High Court has expected the Magistrate to record reasons in respect of his disagreement with the police report if he wants to take cognizance of the offence. There was no allegation of forgery. …...” The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the High Court has expected the Magistrate to record reasons in respect of his disagreement with the police report if he wants to take cognizance of the offence. However, considering question involved in the matter before the learned Single Judge, it transpires that the court was of the opinion that the order passed by the Magistrate suffers from non-application of mind and further shows that it was passed for some extraneous consideration. In the context of facts of that case, the court appears to have made relevant observations. 14. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the matter of Suhas Balkrishna Desai and ors. ..vs.. Chandrakant Ramchandra Parab and ors., reported in 2001(1), Mh.L.J. 328. The learned Single Judge of this court while dealing with the complaint, which was directed to be investigated under Section 156(3) of the Code, has stressed the necessity of recording reasons in the event of exhibition of disagreement by the Magistrate with the police report. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the learned Single Judge of this court has felt the need of recording of reasons by the Magistrate. There cannot be any strait-jacket formula mandating the Magistrate to record reasons in each and every matter wherein he disagrees with the police report and proceeds to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint, verification statement of the complainant and on the basis of the material placed on record. What is expected from the Magistrate is that he should apply his mind to the record placed before him including the police report and the order passed by him shall disclose application of mind. It is only in the cases wherein the Magistrate proceeds to dismiss the complaint by taking recourse to Section 203 of the Code, he is required to record reasons. 15. Turning to the instant matter, it has to be examined as to whether there is application of mind by the Magistrate to the material placed before him including the police report. 16. It is recorded by the Magistrate in the order that the police report discloses commission of offence by accused nos.3 and 4 and the police could not find any material against accused nos.1, 2 and 5. 16. It is recorded by the Magistrate in the order that the police report discloses commission of offence by accused nos.3 and 4 and the police could not find any material against accused nos.1, 2 and 5. On perusal of the police report it transpires that the police have not recorded anywhere that there is any material to hold that accused nos.3 and 4 can be prosecuted further in the crime. It is merely observed in the report that accused no.3 ought to have verified before setting the criminal law in motion against the complainant as to whether the letter in question was really written by Riyazuddin i.e. the complainant, so also he ought to have verified the authenticity of the letter written by All India Urdu Editors, New Delhi. The police have not at all observed anywhere in the report that there is any material to proceed against accused nos.3 and 4. The observations made in the judgment as regards complicity of the accused nos.3 and 4 in the crime is without application of mind to the record of the case by the Magistrate. It is to be noted that the Magistrate after receipt of the police report proceeded to record statement of the complainant. The Magistrate on receipt of the report under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can very well disagree with the report and may proceed to take cognizance of the offence as contemplated by Section 190 of the Code. However, he has to follow the procedure as laid down under Section 200. In the instant matter, on receipt of the police report it transpires that the complainant proceeded to file a protest application. The Magistrate is supposed to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the statement of the complainant, his verification statement and the evidence that may be produced by the complainant in support of his case in the instant matter. Except the statement of the complainant, there is absolutely no material on record either documentary or in the form of deposition of witnesses, to support the case of the complainant, which can form basis of issuance of order calling upon the accused to appear before the court. The learned Magistrate has directed issuance of process against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 465, 469, 120B and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has directed issuance of process against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 465, 469, 120B and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the complaint as well as statement of the complainant, one is at loss to understand as to what is the material or document, which is to be alleged to have been forged by the accused. The alleged document, which is stated to have been forged, is nowhere placed on record by the complainant nor the police during course of investigation have traced such documents. It is also not clear on perusal of the complaint as well as material produced by the complainant in support of his case as to who amongst the five accused is responsible for committing forgery. The manner of commission of offence of forgery has also not been disclosed anywhere in the complaint or in the statement made by the complainant. In the absence of there being any material particulars in respect of commission of offence of forgery at the instance of accused, either in the complaint or being a part of the evidence collected by the police or placed on record by the complainant, it was not permissible for the Magistrate to blindly direct issuance of process against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 465 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. The another aspect of the matter that is required to be taken note of is that the allegations made in the complaint are inherently improbable and on perusal of the contents of the complaint, no offence can be said to have been made out, as alleged. In the instant complaint, it is alleged that the accused persons in furtherance of illegal conspiracy brought into existence false and fabricated documents as if the said false and fabricated documents were signed and written by the complainant. The particulars of alleged false and fabricated documents are no where stated in the complaint. It is further stated that by creating the documents it was tried to be demonstrated that the complainant was instrumental in getting the defamatory matter published against accused no.1, who as per the version of the complainant, has insulted Islam religion. The particulars of alleged false and fabricated documents are no where stated in the complaint. It is further stated that by creating the documents it was tried to be demonstrated that the complainant was instrumental in getting the defamatory matter published against accused no.1, who as per the version of the complainant, has insulted Islam religion. It is inherently improbable as well as difficult to imagine as to how accused no.1 would be instrumental in securing publication of the matter implicating him and such an explosive material, which is in the nature of an insult to Islam. No sane person would be instrumental in securing the publication of such a inflammatory material implicating himself. Viewing from this angle also, the allegations made in the complaint appear to be inherently improbable. Thus, the complaint on its bare perusal do not make out any case against the accused. 18. The learned Sessions Judge, while dealing with the revision application, tendered by accused nos.3 to 5 have considered this aspect of the matter in detail and directed quashment of the criminal proceedings against them. Thus, same analogy adopted by the court of Session while dealing with the Criminal Revision application applies with equal force in respect of accused no.1 and 2. Reliance can be placed on the judgment in the matter of Smt.Nagawwa ..vs.. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and ors. reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736 . The Apex court has laid down the principles in respect of causing interference by the higher Courts in the matter of calling in question orders in respect of issuance of process. Reliance can be placed on the judgment in the matter of Smt.Nagawwa ..vs.. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and ors. reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736 . The Apex court has laid down the principles in respect of causing interference by the higher Courts in the matter of calling in question orders in respect of issuance of process. Those are quoted in para 5 of the judgment, which read as under: “(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.” 19. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex court, it can be safely concluded that the material collected by the police as well as relied upon by the Magistrate considered together with the allegations contained in the complaint taken at their face value, are not sufficient to proceed against the accused. 20. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner seeks leave to place reliance on the observation made by the Apex Court in the matter of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and anr. ..vs.. Special Judicial Magistrate and ors., reported in 1998 SC 128. In paragraph no.28 of the judgment, it is observed by the Apex court, thus “28. 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. 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. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize 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.” 21. Considering the contents of the complaint as well as the material collected by the police so also the statement of the complainant, it transpires that there is absolutely no case made out against the accused for proceeding against them in respect of commission of offence punishable under Section 465 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate has failed to apply his mind to the record of the case in its proper perspective nor has ascertained the untruthfulness of the allegations or otherwise. The Order passed by the Magistrate directing issuance of process against the accused is bad in law. The Revision Application No.143 of 2003 presented by accused nos.1 and 2, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The impugned order passed by the Magistrate on 13/2/2006 in Misc. Cril. Complaint No.4 of 2002 is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute. Criminal Revision No.268 of 2006 is dismissed. The order passed by the 7th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 10th July, 2006 in Criminal Revision No.386 of 2006 is confirmed. Rule is discharged.