Unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint or sufficient material to justify the issue of process, he should not pass the order of issue of process.

Supreme Court in the case of K. Sitaram & Anr. v. CFL Capital Financial
Service Ltd. & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.2285 of 2011], it was held that “when a
person files a complaint and supports it on oath, rendering himself liable to
prosecution and imprisonment if it is false, he is entitled to be believed unless there
is some apparent reason for disbelieving him; and he is entitled to have the persons,
against whom he complains, brought before the court and tried. The only condition
requisite for the issue of process is that the complainant’s deposition must show
some sufficient ground for proceeding.”
It was further held that “unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint or sufficient material to justify the
issue of process, he should not pass the order of issue of process. Where the
complainant, who instituted the prosecution, has no personal knowledge of the
allegations made in the complaint, the magistrate should satisfy himself upon proper
materials that a case is made out for the issue of process. Though under the law, a
wide discretion is given to magistrate with respect to grant or refusal of process,
however, this discretion should be exercised with proper care and caution.[On 21st March, 2017 ]