JUDGMENT : Ambuj Nath, J. 1.Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2664 of 2016, whereby and wherein, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi has found the prima facie case to be true under Sections 323/379/420/34 of the I.P.C. in a very cryptic manner. 3. Attention has been drawn towards the order dated 16.05.2017 wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi has passed an order finding the prima facie case to be true in a very cryptic manner. No reason has been assigned in this order as to how the learned Judicial Magistrate has come to its Judicial satisfaction for finding the prima facie case to be true under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “JM Laboratories and Other Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another” as reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 208], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that; “7. It will be relevant to refer to the summoning order which reads thus; "Whereas your attendance is necessary to give evidence in a charge Sec. 18(a)(i) r/w Sec. 16(1)(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the accused M/s J.M.Laboratories, Vill. Bhanat, P.O- Ghtti, Subathu Road, Solan (H.P.). You are hereby requested to appear in person before the Hon'ble Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool at 10:30 AM on the 10 th day of August 2023. Given under my hand the seal of the court this day of July,2023.” 8. In the judgment and order of even date in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", we have observed thus: “33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons. 34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC749 (supra): “28. 34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC749 (supra): “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. 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." 35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been 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. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. 36. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. 36. The said law would be consistently following by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609 , Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 435 . 37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 (supra), has observed thus: "38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which reads thus: "51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect." 39. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra). 40. In the present case, leaving aside there being no reasons in support of the order of the issuance of process, as a matter of fact, it is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, that there was no such order passed at all. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, based on the record, has presumed that there was an order of issuance of process. We find that such an approach is unsustainable in law. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed." 9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non-speaking one. We find that such an approach is unsustainable in law. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed." 9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non-speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The present appeal is allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 4th October 2023 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Criminal Petition No. 5766 of 2023 is quashed and set aside; and (iii) The summoning order dated 19th July 2023 passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 and the proceedings arising therefrom are also quashed and set aside.” 5. Mr. Nand Kishore Ram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 conceded that order has been passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in a very cryptic manner, but however, he submitted that due to this lacuna the entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed. 6. In view of the discussion made above, order dated 16.05.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.2664 of 2016 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi to pass afresh order in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this Cr. M.P. is partly allowed. 8. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.