ORDER : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN This Crl M C has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the following reliefs; “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the order dated 1.10.2016 made in CC 275/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Mavelikkara, (Annexure A5) and all further proceedings in CC 275/2016 on the file of the Court of Judl. 1st Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, pursuant to Annexure A5 thereto may be quashed by allowing this Crl. M.C.” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appering for the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant. 3. In this matter, a private complaint, copy of which is produced as Annexure A1, was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Mavelikkara, by the complainant/2nd respondent herein, alleging that the accused herein committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 354 of IPC. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and two witnesses while conducting enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 23.07.2016, which is as under: “Complainant present. Heard. Prima facie case is made out for the offence punishable u/s 294(b), 323 and 354 IPC and case is taken on file as CC.275/16. Issue summons to accused. Return of summons. Call on.” 4. In fact, the said order is not produced before this Court and it was forwarded by the learned Magistrate when requested by this Court and the order produced before this Court is a subsequent one, copy of the same is produced as Annexure A5, whereby, the learned Magistrate ordered that “Complainant present. Steps seen taken today. Issue summons to accused. Call on.” 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length to convince this Court that, even though cognizance was taken as per order dated 23.07.2016, the same also is a cryptic order, without application of mind by the Magistrate. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on scrutiny of the statement given by the complainant CW1, her husband CW2 and a person in the nearby shop as CW3, the same would not make any offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 354 of IPC, prima facie to justify cognizance of the said offence as per order dated 23.07.2016. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on scrutiny of the statement given by the complainant CW1, her husband CW2 and a person in the nearby shop as CW3, the same would not make any offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 354 of IPC, prima facie to justify cognizance of the said offence as per order dated 23.07.2016. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and the same are liable to be quashed. 6. It is specifically pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner further that the de-facto complainant herein is none other than the former Secretary of Palamel Service Co-operative Society Ltd No.4013, and she was suspended from service with effect from 24.01.2016, on the allegation that she swindled away Rs.17,51.131/-from the Society. The petitioner herein is the President of the Society, and it is at his juncture, misappropriation was detected. As a sequel thereof, apart from suspending the de-facto complainant from service, crime was registered against her. Thereafter, she was prosecuted as per the proceedings in CC No.524/2018 and convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC. The judgment in CC No.524/2018 dated 13.05.2024 has been placed for the perusal of this Court. Annexure A14 produced before this Court is the copy of FIR which led to conviction in CC No.524/2018. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others 1998 KHC 1055, with reference to paragraph No.28, while stressing the point that the order taking cognizance shall be a reasoned order with application of mind by the Magistrate, where it was held as under: “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. 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. 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 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.” 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust (M/s) v. M/s. India Infoline Ltd and Others 2013 KHC 4229, with reference to paragraph No.14, in support of his contention. The same reads as under: “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.” 8. The learned Counsel for the de-facto complainant argued that, even though the de-facto complainant was convicted and sentenced as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the said verdict is a subject matter of appeal at the option of the de-facto complainant. Therefore, cognizance taken by the Magistrate on evaluating the materials including the statements of CW1 and CW3 does not require any interference. If at all, the order is a cryptic one without assigning reasons, the same has to be set aside and the matter to be remanded back to the Magistrate for taking fresh decision based on the materials, by a reasoned order. 9. If at all, the order is a cryptic one without assigning reasons, the same has to be set aside and the matter to be remanded back to the Magistrate for taking fresh decision based on the materials, by a reasoned order. 9. In this matter, going through Annexure A1 complaint, the allegation is that the complainant reached the cabin of the accused, who was the President of the Co-operative Society, for the purpose of rejoining for duty, with permission, and she produced fitness certificate for the same. But the accused abused her and stated that her job would be terminated today itself. Then he pulled her sari and again abused her. On scanning the statement of CW1, the averments in the complaint has been reiterated. But, CW2, husband of CW1, given statement that CW1 was on leave for six months and when she reached the Co-operative Society on 21.07.2016 for rejoining duty on expiry of the leave, CW1 reached the cabin of the accused for submitting papers for rejoining, seeking permission. According to CW2, he was present outside the cabin during this time. After five minutes, CW1 came out of the cabin crying and said that the accused abused her and threatened that she would not be allowed to continue her job. Statement of CW3 is that he had seen CW1 stepping out of the cabin crying and when he enquired, CW1 stated that she was threatened. 10. Adverting to the legal position with reference to the essentials to be stated in an order taking cognizance, it is held that 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 material evidence on record. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Court 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. 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 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. 11. Therefore, an order taking cognizance should be self-speaking and the same should contain the materials relied on by referring the same in detail and based on the said materials the offences for which cognizance proposed to be taken are made out, so as to justify the order taking cognizance. The order of cognizance without disclosing the essentials described herein above, in the form of a cryptic, irrational and non speaking, would not sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, the cryptic order taking cognizance challenged in this petition would require interference and accordingly order dated 23.07.2016 passed by the Magistrate is liable to be set aside. However, the matter would require reconsideration by the Magistrate after considering the materials, including the statements given by CWs 1 to 3, afresh in view of the settled law herein above discussed. For the said purpose, the matter is liable to be remanded back to the trial court. In the result, this petition stands allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 23.07.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate stands quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for passing fresh order in consideration of the materials, as discussed above and for that the complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on 12.07.2024. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and compliance.