Jharkhand High Court
Ram Chandra Rungta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2025
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2260 of 2017
------
Ram Chandra Rungta, S/o. Late Ram Kumar Rungta, working for
gain as Director of Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited at Hesla, P.O.-
Hesla, P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh. ... ... Petitioner
-Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh Division, P.O. & P.S.-
Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh.
3. Forest Range Officer, Chainpur Range, P.O. & P.S.- Kuju, Dist.-
Ramgarh. ... ... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2262 of 2017
------
1. Rajiv Agrawal @ Rajeev Kumar Agarwal @ Raju Babu, S/o. Sri
Durga Prasad Agarwal, Working for gain as Director of Jharkhand
Ispat Private Limited having its office near P.N. Bank, Main Road,
Ramgarh Cantt, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh.
2. Bikas Kumar @ Bikash Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Sri Durga Prasad
Agarwal, Working for gain as Deputy Manager at Jharkhand Ispat
Private Limited having its office near P.N. Bank, Main Road,
Ramgarh Cantt, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh.
3. Farid Khan, S/o. Isaque Khan, R/o. Nai-Sarai, P.O.- P.S.- Ramgarh,
Dist.- Ramgarh. ... ... Petitioners
-Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh Division, P.O. & P.S.-
Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh.
3. Forest Range Officer, Chainpur Range, P.O. & P.S.- Kuju, Dist.-
Ramgarh. ... ... Opposite Parties
With
------
D. K. Pandey @ Dinesh Kumar Pandey, S/o. Sri Lalji Pandey
Working for gain as General Manager Legal and Liason at Jharkhand
Ispat Private Limited having its office near P.N. Bank, Main Road,
Ramgarh Cantt, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh.
... ... Petitioner
-Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh Division, P.O. & P.S.-
Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh.
3. Forest Range Officer, Chainpur Range, P.O. & P.S.- Kuju, Dist.-
Ramgarh. ... ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
------
14/24.02.2025
Heard the parties.
2. All these applications arise out of the same police case.
Accordingly, all these application are being disposed of by common
order.
3. The petitioners have filed this Cr.M.P. for quashing of order
dated 08.06.2017 passed in connection with G(F) Case No. 85/2016
corresponding to TR-1777/2017, whereby and wherein the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, has taken cognizance of the
offence under Section 33 of the Indian forest Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the bare perusal of the cognizance order manifests that cognizance
has been taken in a very cryptic manner. The learned Magistrate has not
given any reason for coming to its judicial satisfaction for finding the
prima facie case to be true for the aforesaid offence against the
petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of "JM Laboratories and Other Vrs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Another" as reported in [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 208], wherein the Hob'ble Supreme Court has held that;
"7. It will be relevant to refer to the summoning order which reads
thus;
"Whereas your attendance is necessary to give evidence in a
charge Sec. 18(a)(i) r/w Sec. 16(1)(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics
Act, 1940 against the accused M/s J.M. Laboratories, Vill.
Bhanat, P.O- Ghtti, Subathu Road, Solan (H.P.). You are
hereby requested to appear in person before the Hon'ble
Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool at 10:30
AM on the 10th day of August 2023.
Given under my hand the seal of the court this___day
2|Page
of July."
8. In the judgment and order of even date in criminal appeal arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products
Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited v. The
State of Andhra Pradesh", we have observed thus:
"33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that
except recording the submissions of the complainant, no
reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the
accused persons.
34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the
following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi
Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749
(supra):
"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal
case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set
into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the
complainant has to bring only two witnesses to
support his allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of the
Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that
he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and
the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the
nature of allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in support
thereof and would that be sufficient for the
complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to
the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent
spectator at the time of recording of preliminary
evidence before summoning of the accused. The
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence
brought on record and may even himself put
questions to the complainant and his witnesses to
elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the
allegations or otherwise and then examine if any
offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the
accused."
35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an
accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been
3|Page
held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused
must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the
case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the
Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations
made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and
documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would
be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been
held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of
recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the
accused.
36. The said law would be consistently following by
this Court in am catena of judgments including in the cases
of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(2015) 4 SCC 609, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir
Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal
Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 435.
37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of
us (Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar
Singh v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383
(supra), has observed thus:
"38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty
formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to
whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or
not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated
in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no
reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that
there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt that
the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in
this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in
the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, which reads thus:
"51. On the other hand, Section 204 of
the Code deals with the issue of process, if in
the opinion of the Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient
ground for proceeding. This section relates to
commencement of a criminal proceeding. If
the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it
4|Page
may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint
or to whom it has been transferred under
Section 192), upon a consideration of the
materials before him (i.e. the complaint,
examination of the complainant and his
witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if
any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall
issue process against the accused.
52. A wide discretion has been given
as to grant or refusal of process and it must be
judicially exercised. A person ought not to be
dragged into court merely because a
complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case
has been made out, the Magistrate ought to
issue process and it cannot be refused merely
because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in
a conviction.
53. However, the words "sufficient
ground for proceeding" appearing in Section
204 are of immense importance. It is these
words which amply suggest that an opinion is
to be formed only after due application of
mind that there is sufficient basis for
proceeding against the said accused and
formation of such an opinion is to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set
aside if no reason is given therein while
coming to the conclusion that there is prima
facie case against the accused, though the
order need not contain detailed reasons. A
fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the
reason given turns out to be ex facie
incorrect."
39. A similar view has been taken by this Court in
the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra).
40. In the present case, leaving aside there being no
reasons in support of the order of the issuance of process, as
5|Page
a matter of fact, it is clear from the order of the learned
Single Judge of the High Court, that there was no such order
passed at all. The learned Single Judge of the High Court,
based on the record, has presumed that there was an order of
issuance of process. We find that such an approach is
unsustainable in law. The appeal therefore deserves to be
allowed."
9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have
been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is
totally a non-speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the
view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as
INOX Air Products Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh",
and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena
of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special
Judicial Magistrate, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda
and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the present
appeal deserves to be allowed.
10. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The present appeal is allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 4th October 2023
passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in
Criminal Petition No. 5766 of 2023 is quashed and set aside; and
(iii) The summoning order dated 19th July 2023 passed by the Trial
Court in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 and the proceedings arising
therefrom are also quashed and set aside."
5. Mr. P. D. Agrawal, learned Special P.P. for the State appearing in
Cr.M.P. No. 2260/2017 and Cr.M.P. No. 2262/2017 and Mr. B. N.
Ojha, learned Special P.P. for the State appearing in Cr.M.P. No.
2263/2017 have admitted the fact that the order taking cognizance
dated 08.06.2017 has been passed in cryptic way and no reason has
been given for coming to the finding and the factor on which learned
Magistrate has come to conclusion that prima facie case was true
under Section 33 of the Indian forest Act against the petitioners.
6. From the perusal of order dated 08.06.2017, it transpires that the
6|Page
learned magistrate has stated that there is sufficient material available
in the prosecution report to take cognizance against the accused
persons. Learned Magistrate has not given any reason, as to what was
the material on which he has come to the aforesaid conclusion.
7. It is a settled Principle of Law that if no reason has been given
for coming to the conclusion that prima facie case under any offence
is made out, said order will be bad in law.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, order dated 08.06.2017,
passed in connection with G(F) Case No. 85/2016 corresponding to
TR-1777/2017, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh
is set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order in the
matter.
9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Rahul/-
7|Page
