Baby Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3100 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Baby Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 5 March, 2025

Author: Ambuj Nath

Bench: Ambuj Nath

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr. M.P. No. 2298 of 2019
                               ------

1. Baby Singh, aged about 35 years, D/o Sri Bhikhari Singh, Jharkhand

2. Bhikhari Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Nandlal Singh

3. Gautam Singh, aged about 40 years

4. Uttam Singh, aged about 37 years

5. Raju Singh @ Purosotom Singh, aged about 33 years Petitioner No. 3-5, S/o Bhikhari Singh, all R/o Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Karmatand, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioners

-Versus -

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

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : M/s. Radha Krishan Gupta, Advocate For the State : M/s. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : M/s. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

-----

10/05.03.2025 Heard the parties

2. Petitioners have filed this application for quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 396 of 2014 including cognizance order dated 20.12.2018 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur in which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 451, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. s

3. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur has passed the order dated 20.12.2018 in a very cryptic manner. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in M/s. JM Laboratories and Others versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Another as reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 208] in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:-

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 and Another 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 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 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 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."

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 has admitted that the learned S.D.J.M had passed the cognizance order in a very cryptic manner, but for this lacuna, the entire prosecution case cannot be quashed. He prayed that the matter maybe remanded back to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur for passing a detailed appropriate order.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, order dated 20.12.2018 is quashed. This matter is remanded back to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur or his successor for passing a detailed cognizance order.

7. Accordingly, this application is partly allowed.

8. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Nandini/-

Uploaded