JUDGMENT : (Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.) 1. Heard Shri Saksham Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants-Ravi Kumar Bharti @ Raju, Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh and Munna Lal with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 25.04.2022 filed in FIR No. 340, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 against the applicants and also the entire proceedings including the summoning order dated 25.07.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kheri in Case No. 8716 of 2022 Case Crime No. 340 of 2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar Bharti @ Raju and others. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants while drawing attention of this Court towards the First Information Report as well as the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., submits that even if the case of the prosecution is believed as it is the same shall not attract the Section 498-A IPC as admittedly the marriage has not been solemnized due to the lack of 'Saptpadi'. 4. It is further submitted that the instant case is a glaring example of malicious prosecution as no specific role has been assigned to any accused persons either in the First Information Report or in the statement of prosecution witnesses and omnibus allegations have been levelled. 5. It is also submitted that FIR has been lodged only for the purpose of restraining the applicant from marrying to a girl of his choice and the Investigating Officer has not investigated the allegations of FIR in right perspective and submitted charge sheet by making cursory investigation. 6. It is further submitted that the trial court has also not considered the material in right perspective and has taken the cognizance in a mechanical way by passing a stereotype order, thus all the proceedings are nothing but the abuse of process of law and the same be quashed. 7. 6. It is further submitted that the trial court has also not considered the material in right perspective and has taken the cognizance in a mechanical way by passing a stereotype order, thus all the proceedings are nothing but the abuse of process of law and the same be quashed. 7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that at the stage of taking cognizance and issuance of summons / process to the accused persons the Magistrate is not required to meticulously examine the evidence as is required during the course of the trial whether the duty of the Magistrate or the Special Court is to see the sufficiency of the material only for the purpose of proceeding further and the veracity of the statement could not be a subject matter at that stage. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record and keeping in view the order intended to be passed the issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with. 9. Perusal of the record in the light of submissions made by the parties would reveal that the First Information Report lodged by the father of the bride would reveal that the allegations of receiving Rs. 1,00,000/-in cash and gold ring as well as demand of Rs. 7,50,000/-have been levelled against the accused persons. No doubt allegations are general with a specific role to the applicant no.2-Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh. Similar is the situation of the prosecution witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the trial court. 10. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the taking of cognizance and issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is concerned the law on this issue is now no more res integra and the same has been set at rest by many pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and in crux it is desirable for the Magistrate or the Special Court as the case may be to visualize at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing of process that there must be sufficient material in order to proceed further. Certainly the exercise of meticulously examining the evidence or the material submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is not contemplated at that stage as it is the business to be done during the course of trial. Certainly the exercise of meticulously examining the evidence or the material submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is not contemplated at that stage as it is the business to be done during the course of trial. It is also to be reminded that there is a difference of taking cognizance between the cases instituted on complaint and the cases instituted on First Information Report in this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019 may be taken into consideration where a fine distinction has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the process of taking of cognizance in complaint cases as well as in the cases where the charge sheet has been submitted after investigation and it is opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in those cases where the charge sheet has been filed the issuance of process by the Magistrate or Special Court as the case may be would be a sufficient indication that the Magistrate or the Special Court as the case may be has taken into consideration all the material submitted by the Investigating Officer with the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (supra) is reproduced here under:- "While taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C., whether the court has to record reasons for its satisfaction of sufficient grounds for issuance of summons:- 13. The charge sheet was filed in Criminal Case No. 47715/2014 on 18.08.2014 against the accused persons namely Sunil Agrawal and Ratan Agrawal. In the first charge sheet, the respondent-Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta (Afroz Hasanfatta) was referred to as a suspect. In the second supplementary charge sheet filed on 15.11.2014 in Criminal Case No. 62851/2014, the respondent-Afroz is arraigned as accused No. 1 and Amit @ Bilal Haroon Gilani as accused No. 2. In the second supplementary charge sheet, prosecution relies upon the statement of witnesses as well as on certain bank transactions as to flow of money into the account of the respondent-Afroz Hasanfatta and his Company-Nile Trading Corporation. In the second supplementary charge sheet, prosecution relies upon the statement of witnesses as well as on certain bank transactions as to flow of money into the account of the respondent-Afroz Hasanfatta and his Company-Nile Trading Corporation. The order of taking cognizance of the second supplementary charge sheet and issuance of summons to the respondent-Afroz Hasanfatta reads as under:-"I take in consideration charge sheet/complaint for the offence of Section 420, 465, 467, 468 IPC etc. Summons to be issued against the accused." 14. The first and foremost contention of the respondent-accused is that summoning an accused is a serious matter and the summoning order must reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto and in the present case, the order for issue of process without recording reasons was rightly set aside by the High Court. In support of their contention that the summoning order must record reasons showing application of mind, reliance was placed upon Pepsi Foods Ltd. The second limb of submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-accused is that there has to be an order indicating the application of mind by the Magistrate as to the satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether it is a charge sheet by the police or a private complaint. 15. It is well-settled that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and the Magistrate is only to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is fairly well-settled that when issuing summons, the Magistrate need not explicitly state the reasons for his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Reliance was placed upon Bhushan Kumar and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another MANU/SC/0297/2012 : (2012) 5 SCC 424 wherein it was held as under:- "11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492 (SCC p. 499, para 19) the expression "cognizance" was explained by this Court as "it merely means 'become aware of' and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes 'to take notice of judicially'. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492 (SCC p. 499, para 19) the expression "cognizance" was explained by this Court as "it merely means 'become aware of' and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes 'to take notice of judicially'. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone." It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code. 12. A "summons" is a process issued by a court calling upon a person to appear before a Magistrate. It is used for the purpose of notifying an individual of his legal obligation to appear before the Magistrate as a response to violation of law. In other words, the summons will announce to the person to whom it is directed that a legal proceeding has been started against that person and the date and time on which the person must appear in court. A person who is summoned is legally bound to appear before the court on the given date and time. Wilful disobedience is liable to be punished under Section 174 IPC. It is a ground for contempt of court. 13. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. It is a ground for contempt of court. 13. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued." 16. After referring to Bhushan Kumar, Videocon International Limited and other decisions, in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others MANU/SC/0374/2015 : (2015) 12 SCC 420 , it was held as under:-"20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others MANU/SC/1090/1998 : (1998) 5 SCC 749 to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter." The above observations made in para (20) is in the context of taking cognizance of a complaint. As per definition under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., complaint does not include a police report. 17. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent accused relied upon various judgments to contend that while taking cognizance, the court has to record the reasons that prima facie case is made out and that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for that offence. 17. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent accused relied upon various judgments to contend that while taking cognizance, the court has to record the reasons that prima facie case is made out and that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for that offence. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused relied upon judgments in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Mehmood Ul Rehman to contend that while taking cognizance, the Court has to record reasons that prima facie case is made out and that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for that offence. On the facts and circumstances of those cases, this Court held that 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. However, what needs to be understood is that those cases relate to issuance of process taking cognizance of offences based on the complaint. Be it noted that as per the definition under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., 'complaint' does not include a police report. Those cases do not relate to taking of cognizance upon a police report under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Those cases relate to taking cognizance of offences based on the complaint. In fact, it was also observed in the case of Mehmood Ul Rehman that "under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report; but under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C., he has only a complaint before him. Hence, the code specifies that "a complaint of facts which constitutes an offence". 18. Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. provides for cognizance of complaint. Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. deals with taking cognizance of any offence on the basis of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Complaint is defined in Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "2. Definitions. . Hence, the code specifies that "a complaint of facts which constitutes an offence". 18. Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. provides for cognizance of complaint. Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. deals with taking cognizance of any offence on the basis of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Complaint is defined in Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "2. Definitions. . (d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report." The procedure for taking cognizance upon complaint has been provided under Chapter XV -Complaints to Magistrates under Sections 200 to 203 Cr.P.C. A complaint filed before the Magistrate may be dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding and in every such case, he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. If a complaint is not dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate issues process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Section 204 Cr.P.C. is in a separate chapter i.e. Chapter XVI Commencement of Proceedings before Magistrates. A combined reading of Section 203 and Section 204 Cr.P.C. shows that for dismissal of a complaint, reasons should be recorded. The procedure for trial of warrant cases is provided in Chapter XIX -Trial of Warrant Cases by the Magistrates. Chapter XIX deals with two types of cases -A -Cases instituted on a police report and B -Cases instituted otherwise than on police report. In the present case, cognizance has been taken on the basis of police report. 19. In a case instituted on a police report, in warrant cases, under Section 239 Cr.P.C., upon considering the police report and the documents filed along with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate after affording opportunity of hearing to both the accused and the prosecution, shall discharge the accused, if the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless and record his reasons for so doing. Then comes Chapter XIX-C -Conclusion of trial-the Magistrate to rendering final judgment under Section 248 Cr.P.C. considering the various provisions and pointing out three stages of the case. Then comes Chapter XIX-C -Conclusion of trial-the Magistrate to rendering final judgment under Section 248 Cr.P.C. considering the various provisions and pointing out three stages of the case. Observing that there is no requirement of recording reasons for issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., in Raj Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another MANU/UP/1095/1999 : 1999 Cr. LJ 4101, Justice B.K. Rathi, the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held as under:-" As such there are three stages of a case. The first is under Section 204 Cr. P.C. at the time of issue of process, the second is under Section 239 Cr. P.C. before framing of the charge and the third is after recording the entire evidence of the prosecution and the defence. The question is whether the Magistrate is required to scrutinise the evidence at all the three stages and record reasons of his satisfaction. If this view is taken, it will make speedy disposal a dream. In my opinion the consideration of merits and evidence at all the three stages is different. At the stage of issue of process under Section 204 Cr. P.C. detailed enquiry regarding the merit and demerit of the cases is not required. The fact that after investigation of the case, the police has submitted the charge sheet, may be considered as sufficient ground for proceeding at the stage of issue of process under Section 204 Cr. PC., however subject to the condition that at this stage the Magistrate should examine whether the complaint is barred under any law, At the stage of Section 204 Cr. P.C. if the complaint is not found barred under any law, the evidence is not required to be considered nor the reasons are required to be recorded. At the stage of charge under Section 239 or 240 Cr. P.C. the evidence may be considered very briefly, though at that stage also, the Magistrate is not required to meticulously examine and to evaluate the evidence and to record detailed reasons. 8. Abare reading of Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. shows that Section 203 Cr.P.C. renquires that reasons should be recorded for the dismissal of the complaint. P.C. the evidence may be considered very briefly, though at that stage also, the Magistrate is not required to meticulously examine and to evaluate the evidence and to record detailed reasons. 8. Abare reading of Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. shows that Section 203 Cr.P.C. renquires that reasons should be recorded for the dismissal of the complaint. Contrary to it, there is no such' requirement under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order for issue of process in this case without recording reasons, does not suffer from any illegality." We fully endorse the above view taken by the learned Judge. 20. In para (21) of Mehmood Ali Rehman, this Court has made a fine distinction between taking cognizance based upon charge sheet filed by the police under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and a private complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and held as under:-"21. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that "a complaint of facts which constitute such offence". Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. The complaint is simply to be rejected." 21. In summoning the accused, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the materials collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. The court is not required to evaluate the evidence and its merits. The standard to be adopted for summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is not the same at the time of framing the charge. For issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the expression used is "there is sufficient ground for proceeding.."; whereas for framing the charges, the expression used in Sections 240 and 246 IPC is "there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence..". At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., detailed enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of the case is not required. At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., detailed enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of the case is not required. The fact that after investigation of the case, the police has filed charge sheet along with the materials thereon may be considered as sufficient ground for proceeding for issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 22. In so far as taking cognizance based on the police report, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating Officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the Investigating Officer and thereafter, charge sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge sheet and for not taking on file." 11. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge sheet and for not taking on file." 11. Thus keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case as well as keeping in view the fact that the partial quashment of any criminal proceeding is not permissible as it is for the trial court to decide what offence has been committed by the accused persons and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 and lastly State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019, I do not find any substance in the submissions of learned counsel for applicants, so far. 12. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused. 13. However, taking into consideration all the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants, the instant application is finally disposed of with a direction that the applicants within 15 days from today may move an appropriate application for discharge before the trial court through counsel and if such an application is moved within the time stipulated herein before the trial court would be under an obligation to provide an opportunity of being heard to the parties and will dispose of the discharge application by passing a reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law. 14. For 30 days from today or till the disposal of the discharge application which ever is later the applicants shall not be arrested in the above mentioned case in lieu of any coercive process which might have been issued by the trial court.