Jharkhand High Court
Kislay Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2025
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
2023:JHHC:44578
2023:JHHC:44578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 280 of 2016
------
Kislay Mahato, S/o. Kamal Chand Mahato, R/o. Birsa Nagar, Holding
No. 247, Zone No. 1, Birsa Nagar, Telco, P.O. & P.S.- Telco,
Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum.
... ... Petitioner
-Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dipti Mahto, W/o. Kislay Mahto, R/o. Vill.- Kiriburu Township,
Qr. No. E Type 73/1, P.O. & P.S.- Kiriburu, Dist.- West
Singhbhum. ... ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate
: Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 02 : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
------
10/02.04.2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is confining his prayer for quashing of order
taking cognizance dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Court of learned
A.C.J.M., Chaibasa in connection with Kiriburu P.S. Case No. 18/2015
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 561/2015, registered for the offence
under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. Attention has been drawn towards the order passed by the Court
of learned A.C.J.M., Chaibasa, where cognizance of this case been
taken without assigning any reason under Section 498A of the I.P.C.
and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.
4. Reliance has been placed upon the decision passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in the case of "Amresh
Kumar Dhiraj & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Another" passed
in Cr.M.P. No. 2744 of 2013, in which the Hon'ble Court has held that;
"22. The order taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and
order issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., can very well be a
composite order but as observed, the application of mind would be
different in both cases. This application of mind must be reflected
1|Page
in the order itself. The order should not be mechanical. Magistrate
2023:JHHC:44578
has to mention at least that there are sufficient materials to proceed
against the persons and what are the prima-facie 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.
23. Applying the aforesaid principle, while going through this
impugned order, I find that though the Magistrate has mention that
there are statements of the witnesses, but what are the prima-facie
materials to proceed against these petitioners and others have not
been whispered. In a most mechanical manner, in one line, this
impugned order has been passed summoning the accused. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
Ltd." and "Ramdev Food Products Private Limited" (supra) has
held that summoning an accused is a very serious matter and has
got far reaching implications on the person who has been
summoned.
Thus, a serious order, i.e. summoning order should not be
issued casually in a mechanical manner. I find that the order taking
cognizance and the summoning order, in this case, is passed in a
most casual manner without recording his satisfaction and as to
what are the bare minimum materials available on record. I also
find that the court has taken cognizance against the accused, which
is not the mandate of law. As mentioned earlier cognizance is to be
taken against an offence and warrant/ summon is to be issued
against accused. Further, the nature of satisfaction will also have to
be different while passing both the orders.
The facts, which appear before the Magistrate, have to be
bifurcated by him, (i) offence centric (ii) person centric. The
offence centric fact will be the basis of the order taking cognizance
under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and person centric fact to be the basis of
order under Section 204 Cr.P.C."
5. No reason has been assigned as to what was the ground for the
learned Court to come to its judicial satisfaction that prima facie case
was found to be true under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 &
4 of the D.P. Act.
2|Page
6. In view of the aforesaid fact, order taking cognizance dated 2023:JHHC:44578
20.05.2016 passed by the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Chaibasa is hereby
set aside.
7. The matter is remanded back to the Court of learned A.C.J.M.,
Chaibasa or his successor Court to pass a fresh reasoned order.
8. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if
any, stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Rahul/-
3|Page
