Prashant Pradhan @ Prashant Kumar ... vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2304 Jhar

                                                    1                  Cr.M.P. No. 1585 of 2022


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr.M.P. No. 1585 of 2022
                  Prashant Pradhan @ Prashant Kumar Pradhan, aged about 44 years,
                  S/o Pradeep Kumar Pradhan, R/o Shivpuri, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S.
                  Lohsigna, Dist. Hazaribag                      ... Petitioner
                                          -Versus-
             1.   State of Jharkhand
             2.   Sri Bajrang Mahto, the Officer In charge, Korrah Police Station, P.O.
                  Hazaribag, P.S. Korrah, Dist. Hazaribag        ... Opposite Parties
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.

-----

05/28.06.2022. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by

Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Kumar

Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance

dated 29.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hazaribag in connection with Korrah P.S. Case No.158 of 2021, G.R. No.253

of 2022, S.T. No.161 of 2022, pending in the court of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag.

3. It has been alleged in the FIR that during crime checking at about

14:45 PM, the police official signalled a Fortuner Car to stop, but the

driver tied to alight from the car and run away however he was stopped.

On getting suspicious, they tried to find independent witnesses, but

due to notoriety of the petitioner none come forward. It has also been

alleged that one 9 MM country made pistol full with 8 cartridges and

Rs.14,200/- were found and on that basis, the petitioner was arrested by

the police. The learned court has taken cognizance vide order dated

29.01.2022.

4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has

assailed the cognizance order on the ground that the learned court has not

disclosed the prima facie material against the petitioner and has taken the

cognizance order, which is against the mandate of law. He relied upon the

judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj &

others v. State of Jharkhand & another, reported in 2019 SCC

OnLine Jhar 2775.

5. Paragraph 25 of the said order is quoted herein below:

"25. The order taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and order issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., can very well a composite order but as observed, the application of mind would be different in both cases. This application of mind must be reflected in the order itself. The order should not be mechanical. Magistrate has to mention at least that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the persons and what are the primafacie materials to proceed against them. He need not pass a detail judgment evaluating the materials, which are before him. The detail reasons as to why he is taking cognizance or issuing process are not to be mentioned but at least what are the bare minimum prima- facie materials against the accused-petitioners should be mentioned in the order issuing summon and prima facie what offence is alleged, in the order taking cognizance."

6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner also

relied upon the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by this Court in Cr. Revision

No.711 of 2018.

7. By way of relying these two judgments, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned

senior counsel submits that the cognizance order is bad in law.

8. Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State submits

that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that the

learned court after looking into entire material, has taken the cognizance.

9. The Court has gone through the FIR as well as cognizance order and

finds that from the body of the petitioner one 9 MM country made pistol full

with 8 cartridges were recovered. There is no doubt that the court is

required to disclose prima facie material against the accused, as held by this

Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj (supra). Looking to the

cognizance order dated 29.01.2022, this Court finds that the learned court

has gone through FIR, case diary, charge sheet, seizure list, confessional

statement, sanction report and other materials and has also considered the

statement of the witnesses contained in para 5, 6, 7, 21 and 22 of the case

diary and thereafter he has taken the cognizance while passing the

impugned order.

10. The mens rea can only be decided at the time of trial and not at the

stage of issuing summons. When prosecution relies upon the materials,

strict standard of proof is not to be applied at the stage of issuance of

summons nor to examine the probable defence which the accused may

take. All that the Court is required to do is to satisfy itself as to whether

there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. Before summoning the accused,

the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of

it. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only

whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and

the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of materials on

record. The only thing is required to apply its mind. This aspect of the

matter has been recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the

effect that strict standard of proof is not to be applied at the stage of

issuance of summons nor to examine the probable defence which the

accused may take, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta [Criminal

Appeal No.224 of 2019, arising out of S.L.P.(Cr.) No.6068 of 2017] reported

in (2019) 20 SCC 539, Paragraph nos. 52 and 53 of the said judgment are

quoted herein below:

"52. As discussed earlier, while taking cognizance of an offence based upon a police report, it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. As discussed earlier, along with the second supplementary charge sheet, number of materials like statement of witnesses, Bank statement of the respondent- accused and his company Nile Trading Corporation and other Bank Statement, Call Detail Records and other materials were placed. Upon consideration of the second upplementary charge sheet and the materials placed thereon, the Magistrate satisfied himself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent and issued summons. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, erred in interfering with theorder of the Magistrate in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

53. In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter when the matter is in nascent stage. When the prosecution relies upon the materials, strict standard of proof is not to be applied at the stage of issuance of summons nor to examine the probable defence which the accused may take. All that the court is required to do is to satisfy itself as to whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The learned Single Judge committed a serious error in going into the merits and demerits of the case and the impugned order is liable to be set aside."

11. In view of the above facts, the Court finds that the learned court has

applied its mind and has gone through the materials on record and on the

basis of the statement of the witnesses, the impugned order has been

passed. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

12. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/