G.R. Luthra, J.
(1) The petitioner filed a complaint for prosecuting and punishing Shri Ram Sharma, his wife, Mrs. Sudha Sharma, Shri Rodu Ram and Smt. Ram Piari (hereinafter referred to as accused Nos. I to 4) in respect of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC. According to the allegations of the petitioners, in pursuance of a conspiracy the aforesaid accused dishonestly and fraudulently induced the former to open letters of credit and pay money in respect of the import of a product known as Gamapicoline which was ultimately imported from New York, U.S.A. and received at Bombay and Calcutta ports.
(2) The complaint came before Shri Jaswant Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, who on July 4, 1981 expressed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds for proceedings against all the accused under Sections 120-B and 420 Indian Penal Code and ordered the summoning of all the accused. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the accused brought a Revision Petition in the court of Sessions which came up before Shri B.S. Choudhary, Additional Sessions Judge. New Delhi. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the order of the Learned Magistrate in respect of the summoning of accused Nos. I and 2 but the order of summoning the remaining accused Nos. 3 and 4 was quashed. The present petition is directed against the aforesaid order dated 14-1.1983 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
(3) It is not possible to find out the reasons which impelled the learned Additional Sessions Judge to pass the impugned order. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge spent most of his time in summarizing the allegations of the petitioners and the arguments of the counsel for the parties. Then he expressed an opinion that although the preliminary evidence established the commission of offence by accused Nos. I and 2, yet the other two persons (referring to accused Nos. 3 and 4) were not directly connected with the commission of the alleged offence. The exact words used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of accused Nos. 3 and 4 read as under :
'THE other two persons i.e. petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 are not so directly connected with the commission of the alleged offence though their names appear while in statement or in complaint participating in the talks and representations.'
Thereafter while concluding the judgment remarks made by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge are as given below :
'IN view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the summoning order qua petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 is not warranted in the instant case. However, these persons can be imp leaded later on if some cogent evidence comes against them during the enquiry of the trial of the case.'
(4) It is clear from the above that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not explained at all as to how the accused Nos. 3 and 4 (who were petitioners 3 and 4 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge) were not directly connected with the commission of the offence or making of representations which induced and entrapped the petitioners to part with the money. The petitioners, in their complaint have given in detail as to how at different stages accused Nos. 3 and 4 had been joining accused Nos. I and 2 in making dishonest and fraudulent inducements to the petitioners. It is not necessary to mention those details in this order. It is sufficient to say that petitioners had put full blame on the accused Nos. 3 and 4 also in respect of the conspiracy. thereforee, when there were good grounds for proceeding against accused Nos. I and 2 it cannot be said that there was no such ground in proceeding against accused Nos. 3 and 4.
(5) Although it is not very clear from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he did not find cogent pre-lectionary evidence against accused Nos. 3 and 4, yet I am guessing from the words reproduced above that he was under an impression that the evidence against accused Nos. 3 and 4 was not cogent and that is why he remarked that in case some cogent evidence were adduced against the said accused at a later stage, they could be imp leaded during the trial. The approach of Learned Additional Sessions Judge is wholly wrong and is totally against the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shiwlingappa Konjalgi and others, : 1976CriLJ1533 to the effect that at the stage of issuing of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. (on the basis of a complaint) the only thing to be seen is whether on the allegations made in tb.e complaint or the evidence led in support of the same, the Court is prima-facie satisfied, if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and court has not to enter into detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case. Under the circumstances the only thing to be determined by the Additional Sessions Judge was if there were sufficient grounds for proceeding or not. He had not to give an opinion if the evidence was cogent or not for basing conviction of the accused Nos. 3 and 4. In fact, it is pertinent to mention that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not even mention as to how he was finding the evidence of the petitioner led at the preliminary stage to be wanting in cogency.
(7) It is thereforee, clear that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which is devoid of reasons and clarity and is merely a summary of the allegations contained in the complaint Along with a summary of the arguments of the counsel for the parties addressed before him, cannot be sustained. The said judgment is hereby set aside and that of the learned Magistrate is restored. All the accused shall be proceeded against. As there has been delay on account of the wrong order of the Additional Sessions Judge it is necessary that the complaint should be proceeded with expeditiously. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court for necessary action forthwith.