Vishal Kumar Shah @ Vishal Shah vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3562 Jhar

                                       1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 2188 of 2022

----

Vishal Kumar Shah @ Vishal Shah, aged about 53 years, s/o Vijay Kumar Shah, r/o 178, Bidhan Sarani, Beadon Street, P.O., P.S. Beadon Street and District Kolkata, West Bengal PIN 700006 ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocate

----

3/07.09.2022 Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. By way of filing this petition under 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatsila, whereby, the

cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 419,

420, 414 and 34 IPC in connection with Galudih P.S. Case No. 29/2017

(G.R. No. 356 of 2017).

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court

has committed a grave illegality in taking cognizance for the offence and

summoning the petitioner. He further submits that the order impugned

does not suggest application of mind while passing the order impugned.

He further submits that while issuing the process of summon, the learned

court has not recorded his opinion that there are sufficient ground for

proceeding against the petitioner. What are the grounds against the

petitioner must be reflected in the order, which is missing in the order

impugned and thus the order is liable to be set aside.

4. After hearing the parties and from perusal of the order

impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the

offence and issued summons against the accused persons. Section 204

Cr.P.C provides that a Magistrate, while passing the order taking

cognizance, must consider and form opinion that there are sufficient

grounds to proceed against the petitioner. By the impugned order, I find

that the learned court has issued the summon but has not whispered as

to what are the materials to proceed against the petitioner. Thus there is

no application of judicial mind in passing the order impugned as the

Court has not formed opinion that there are sufficient grounds to

proceed. Merely recording "having perused the record" and the "facts

and circumstances of this case" does not subserve the purpose of a

reasoned judicial order which has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Cr. Appeal No. 1843 of 2019, decided on 5th December, 2019.

Further since the order impugned does not reflect any application of

judicial mind, the same is also covered by the judgment passed by this

Court in Cr.M.P. No.2744 of 2013. Thus, I have no alternative than to set

aside the order impugned.

5. Thus, the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatsila, whereby, the cognizance has been

taken against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 414 and 34 IPC in

connection with Galudih P.S. Case No. 29/2017 (G.R. No. 356 of 2017) is

set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

6. However, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to proceed

further in accordance with law.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/