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 examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary produced in support thereof and would that be sufficient to proceed further. 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 a matter of course and in coming to a decision as to whether the process should be issued the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. 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 he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate, at that stage, to enter into a detailed discussion of the merit or de-merits of the case. A wide discretion thus has been given to the magistrate so 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 and 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. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 Cr.P.C. 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, reference in this regard may be taken of the law laid down by the Apex Court in following cases [AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 923, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation , AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1947, Smt. Nagawwa v/s Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & others, AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 1998 S. C . 128 , M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others]
