The petitioners (Radhashyam Banerjee and others) filed a criminal revision application under Section 482 CrPC before the Calcutta High Court seeking to quash complaint case C.R. Case No. 110 of 2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly, in which they were accused of rioting, trespass, mischief, and criminal intimidation under Sections 147/148/447/427/504/506(2) IPC. The petitioners contended that the complaint was a counter-blast filed by Opposite Party No. 2 after a charge sheet was submitted against him, that there were inconsistencies in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, that the Magistrate did not apply judicial mind before issuing process, and that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out. The opposite party argued that a counter-complaint is permissible in law, that no express reasons are required in a summoning order under Section 204 CrPC, and that a prima facie case existed. The High Court analysed the submissions of both sides, examined the relevant case law on the judicial responsibility of Magistrates while issuing process, and considered whether the Magistrate had properly applied his mind before issuing summons. The judgment text as provided ends mid-analysis, so the final order of the Court is not captured in the supplied text.