JUDGMENT : 1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash and set aside the Criminal Complaint and order passed thereon by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankleshwar in Criminal Case No.218 of 2007 against the present applicants. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present application are that the respondent No.1 has filed complaint being Criminal Case No.217 of 2007 against one AlAas Trade Link and 24 others under Sections 428 and 429 of Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ('the Act, 1986' for short) read with Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 ('the Rules, 1989' for short). 3.1 In the said complaint, which was filed by the original complainant of Criminal Case No.218 of 2007 against one AlAas Trade Link and 24 others under Sections 428 and 429 of Indian Penal Code as well as under the Act, 1986 read with the Rules, 1989, it is alleged that on 04.12.2005, Deputy Environment Engineer and Scientific Officer visited the sight which was near Tapi Lodge on National Highway No.8, on the receipt of the telephonic message as well as newspaper reports in respect of death of cows on eating grass. At that time Mamlatdar, Ankleshwar and one Ramubhai Bharvad were present there. Said Shri Ramu Bharwad pointed out the place where the cows were grazing. Ramu Bharwad shown some papers and documents of M/s.Lupin Limited, Ankleshwar, which were in his possession, but were not handed over to the officers of the GPCB. 3.2 Both the officers inspected open place and inspected the heap of wastages having grass and other materials. On 13.12.2005, during inquiry, it was revealed that the said plot was belonging to one Thakorebhai who had given the said plot to Ashfak Khan for business. Samples were collected from this heap of waste for laboratory analysis. 3.3 It is further alleged in the said complaint that during inquiry, the officers inspected the premises of M/s.Lupin Limited. They also contacted one Samirbhai of AlAas Trade Link who had informed the officers about purchase of empty drums from ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited, situated at Panoli. It is alleged that AlAas Trade Link has not obtained necessary permissions under the Rules from GPCB with respect to the said places. They also contacted one Samirbhai of AlAas Trade Link who had informed the officers about purchase of empty drums from ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited, situated at Panoli. It is alleged that AlAas Trade Link has not obtained necessary permissions under the Rules from GPCB with respect to the said places. It is alleged in the said complaint that when the officers had visited ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited, situated at Panoli, they found the empty drums and Works Manager Shri R.G.Desai was interrogated. It was revealed that empty drums were given to ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited on 24.11.2005. 3.4 However, as regards the grass, it was pointed out by the Works Manager that said grass was usually and generally given to Bharvad Sureshbhai, who in turn, was providing milk and curd to canteen of the company. 3.5 It is further stated in the complaint that there was entry noted by Ankleshwar Rural Police Station on 04.12.2005 in respect to the death of cows and it was believed that due to irresponsible and negligent handling of hazardous waste being thrown in the area where the cows were grazing when the death of the cows appeared to have occurred. 3.6 Hence, it is alleged that the persons responsible for throwing hazardous waste in open place are responsible for contravention of provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and under Section 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.7 It is the case of the applicants that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankleshwar, passed an order of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. The concerned Investigating Officer recorded statements of number of witnesses, collected documentary evidences during the course of inquiry and on completion of inquiry submitted his report before the learned Magistrate, wherein, it was stated that the death of cows was as a result of poisonous insecticides 'Monocrotophosh', a poisoning substance. In the said report, it is stated by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the material collected during the course of inquiry that in respect of the grass collected from the heap of the waste material and water of the lake, no chemical poison was found in the samples of grass and water of lake. In the said report, it is stated by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the material collected during the course of inquiry that in respect of the grass collected from the heap of the waste material and water of the lake, no chemical poison was found in the samples of grass and water of lake. It is further stated in the said report that ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited company and Lupin Company were not manufacturing Organo Phosphorus or using such Organo Phosphorus NonThio Type Monocrotophosh. It is further stated in the report of the Investigating Officer that one Cheminova Company situated at Panoli, GIDC and one United Phosphorus Limited, situated at Ankleshwar GIDC are manufacturing Monocrotophosh. 3.8 The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after receipt of the report from the Investigating Officer submitted in pursuance to inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and after considering the contentions of the original complainant, issued the process against the present applicants and other accused. 3.9 That, this Court vide an order dated 26.02.2007 passed an order, wherein, it has been observed that “learned advocate appearing for the applicants does not press this application qua applicants No.1 and 2.” Therefore, the present application stands withdrawn qua applicants No.1 and 2 and survives qua the applicant No.3 only. 4. Heard learned advocate Shri Kashyap R. Joshi for the applicant and learned APP Shri K.P.Raval for respondent No.1State and learned advocate Shri Rutvij Oza for respondent No.2. 5. Learned advocate Shri Joshi for the applicant mainly submitted the following points. 5.1 Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankleshwar, has not properly considered the report submitted by the Investigating Officer and the material produced along with the said report and thereby without proper application of mind, issued the process against the applicants and therefore the order of issuance of process against the applicants is required to be quashed and set aside. 5.2 The ingredients of Sections 428 and 429 of Indian Penal Code are not made out against the applicants herein. It is further submitted that Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected the documentary evidences such as the FSL report and opinion of Veterinary Doctor. 5.2 The ingredients of Sections 428 and 429 of Indian Penal Code are not made out against the applicants herein. It is further submitted that Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected the documentary evidences such as the FSL report and opinion of Veterinary Doctor. Relying upon the said report, learned advocate for the applicants further submitted that according to the statements of witnesses, the cows had eaten grass near the place of offense in an area of about 18 feet which is alleged to be forming part of heap of grass with other chemical containing material. The sample of this grass material was sent to FSL, Surat. FSL report does not disclose presence of any poisonous chemical and there is no material about identity of the sample being of a particular company. 5.3 The final cause of death of cows, as revealed from the FSL report and opinion of Veterinary Doctor, is due to Arsenic Lead, Organo Phosphorus NonThio Type Monocrotophosh. The investigation revealed that written reply from GPCB clearly indicated that ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited and/or Lupin Ltd., are not, in any manner, dealing with Organo Phosphorus NonThio Type Monocrotophosh Insecticide. 5.4 The samples of grass and water collected from the place, when examined by Forensic Science Laboratory, Surat, has clearly ruled out the presence of Organo Phosphorus Non Thio Type Monocrotophosh Insecticide poison from those samples. The samples collected by GPCB have been analyzed by GPCB in their laboratory but that is relating to powder containing chemicals and pastes and there was no sample of chemical contained grass or water. The samples taken by Veterinary Doctor from the place in respect to chemical contained grass and water which were analyzed by FSL, Surat, did not reveal the presence of any chemical poison. 5.5 The heap of grass and other material only revealed the presence of papers of Lupin Ltd., but there is no material in respect to ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited. 5.6 As regards disposal of drums by ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited to AlAas Trade Link on th November 2005, there is no report obtained by GPCB to find out whether there is any poisonous chemical in such drums. According to the statements of witness, there is no presence of any chemical in empty drums in view of method of packings of the material in polythene bags. According to the statements of witness, there is no presence of any chemical in empty drums in view of method of packings of the material in polythene bags. AlAas Trade Link is having authorization from GPCB. It appears that Al Aas Trade Link has taken this new premises recently and had not obtained necessary authorization in respect to the said new place. There is no report in respect to the said drums in possession of AlAas Trade Link. 5.7 The Criminal Complaint filed by the original complainant is much delayed and the first order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class of police inquiry u/s. 202 is also without recording the verification and so, it vitiates the entire proceedings. 5.8 The report of the police after the said inquiry clearly indicates that the applicants were not and are not involved in the said incident and so, the report almost absolves them from any criminal liability. 5.9 The applicant No.3 i.e. original accused no.3 is not the resident of Ankleshwar and he has nothing to do with the said proprietary concern, as he is neither proprietor nor partner and was never looking after the business of the applicant No.1. The statement made before the police ought to have been considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. 5.10 There is no role of the applicant No.3 i.e. Mohmad Ashfakkhan in the said incident and he has been falsely implicated and unnecessarily dragged into the said controversy. 5.11 The police report clearly suggests that the real culprits are some other persons and there is no iota of evidence against the present applicants. 6. Learned advocate for the applicants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s. G.H.C.L. Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. M/s.India Infoline Limited and allied cases, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1433 and submitted that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. 7. In the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, it is specifically stated that ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited is not manufacturing Monocrotophosh. However, two other companies in the said area are manufacturing the aforesaid substance i.e. Cheminova Company and United Phosphorus Limited. 7. In the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, it is specifically stated that ISAGRO (Asia) Agrochemicals Private Limited is not manufacturing Monocrotophosh. However, two other companies in the said area are manufacturing the aforesaid substance i.e. Cheminova Company and United Phosphorus Limited. However, surprisingly the respondent No.1 complainant has not filed complaint against these two companies. Thus, in substance, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that learned Magistrate has failed to consider all the aforesaid aspects while issuing the process and therefore it can be said that there is total non application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate and therefore, the impugned process be quashed and set aside qua applicants. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Shri Rutvij Oza appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submitted following points. 8.1 The learned Magistrate has not committed any error while issuing the process against the applicants. The learned Magistrate has passed a reasoned order while issuing process against the accused and therefore, it is not correct to submit on the part of the applicants that learned Magistrate has not applied his mind. 8.2 That 31 cows died due to consumption of quantiminated grass and drinking water from the place where the empty drums of the applicant company were found. As per the postmortem report of the dead bodies of the cows, it is clear that cows died as a result of poisonous insecticide Organo Phospherus Non Thio Type Monocrotophosh. 9. Learned APP Shri K.P.Raval adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent No.2Original Complainant. 10. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. I have also considered the submissions canvassed and the judgments relied upon by the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. 10.1 From the record, it appears that the respondent No.1complainant has filed the complaint against 25 accused. However, so far as the applicant of this application is concerned, no specific role is attributed to this applicant. 10.2 It is not alleged in the complaint that how the applicant is connected with the alleged offenses. 10.3 The applicant i.e. original accused no.3 is not the resident of Ankleshwar and he has nothing to do with the said proprietary concern, as he is neither proprietor nor partner and was never looking after the business of the applicant No.1. 10.2 It is not alleged in the complaint that how the applicant is connected with the alleged offenses. 10.3 The applicant i.e. original accused no.3 is not the resident of Ankleshwar and he has nothing to do with the said proprietary concern, as he is neither proprietor nor partner and was never looking after the business of the applicant No.1. The statement made before the police ought to have been considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. 10.4 Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankleshwar, has also not applied his mind with regard to this aspect. It is further clear from the record that Investigating Officer has submitted his detailed report before the learned Magistrate after recording the statement of witnesses and collecting the documentary evidences. 10.5 From the reports submitted by the Investigating Officer which are produced on record before this Court, it is clear that Investigating Officer has exonerated the applicant. In the said report, it is stated by him that death of the cows is because of consumption of Monocrotophosh substance. It is further specifically stated by the Investigating Officer that one Cheminova Company and United Phosphorus Limited are manufacturing the said substance viz. Monocrotophosh. 10.6 Thus, from the record, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind with regard to the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, nor he has applied the mind with regard to the involvement of the applicants in the alleged offenses. 11. At this stage, I refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision held in para No.14 as under: “14. Be that as it may, as held by this Court, summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record.” 12. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record.” 12. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the learned JMFC has not applied his mind while issuing the process against the applicant No.3. Thus, from the record, it appears that the issuance of process against the applicant No.3 is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the same is required to be quashed and set aside while exercising powers under Section 482. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the process issued by the JMFC against the applicant No.3 in Criminal Case No.218 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.