Failure to personally examine complainant and record judicial reasons vitiates order for issuance of process.

The Complainant (Samraj Gold) deals in the gold business and had insured its goods with Accused No. 1 (New India Assurance) since 2001

In 2019, gold worth approximately Rs. 7 crores was allegedly misappropriated by a goldsmith, Anil Maji

The Complainant alleged that the insurance company’s officers (A2-A7, A9) and the appointed surveyor (A8) hatched a criminal conspiracy to reduce the policy risk cover without consent and tampered with policy documents to facilitate the rejection of the insurance claim

After the police refused to register an FIR, citing a civil dispute, the Complainant filed a private complaint

The Magistrate, instead of independently examining the complainant, accepted a pre-typed verification statement provided by the Complainant's advocate

Following a police report under Section 202 CrPC, the Magistrate issued process for offences under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the IPC

Revision applications were filed, leading to conflicting orders by different Sessions Judges regarding the sustainability of the process against various accused

The court applied Section 200 of the CrPC, which mandates the judicial examination of the complainant on oath to "separate the chaff from the grain" and prevent vexatious prosecutions

It relied on Amarnath Baijnath Gupta v. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd., establishing that a Magistrate must put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth rather than reproducing a pre-conceived format

Regarding the issuance of process, the court applied Section 204 CrPC and the principles from Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, which require a Magistrate to state the reasons for finding "sufficient grounds for proceeding" in the order

Finally, it cited Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, emphasizing that summoning an accused is a serious matter requiring the manifest application of judicial mind to the facts and law

The Court observed that the Magistrate failed to perform the statutory duty under Section 200 CrPC by merely endorsing a pre-typed verification statement with "Before me"

This mechanical approach bypassed the requirement for the Magistrate to intelligently determine whether a prima facie case existed

Furthermore, the Court found the order issuing process to be deficient as it contained no reasons explaining how the alleged offences under Sections 406 or 467 IPC were made out against specific accused persons

The Court emphasized that while detailed reasons are not required, the "formation of opinion" must be reflected in the order to ensure objectivity and permit judicial review

However, the Court noted that since cognizance had already been taken and a Section 202 CrPC investigation report was on record, the procedural errors necessitated a remand rather than the total dismissal of the complaint

The Court held that the Magistrate's failure to independently record a verification statement and provide reasons in the summoning order was a fatal procedural irregularity

The matter was remanded to the Metropolitan Magistrate with directions to record the Complainant’s statement under Section 200 CrPC afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law

All petitions were partly allowed