Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 527 (JHR)

Jayendra Nath Shah Deo v. State of Jharkhand

2020-05-26

ANANDA SEN

body2020
ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. 1. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 10.30 a.m. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.05.2019, by which cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the accused person and, thereafter summon has been issued to this petitioner for appearance. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the cognizance is never taken against an accused, rather it is taken against an offence. He submits that the impugned order, which can be said to be a composite order of summoning and taking cognizance, is absolutely cryptic, vague and non-speaking order. He further submits that requirement of Section 204, Cr.P.C. has not been dealt with in the order impugned. He also submits that the court should have sufficiently satisfied itself before issuing summon against the accused. He further submits that this Court in the case "Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 : (2020 (1) AJR 577)", has passed a detailed order holding that while issuing summon at least prima facie subjective satisfaction should be recorded that there are sufficient materials to issue summon. He submits that the impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order, thus, the same needs to be quashed. Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that there are materials against the petitioner. Thus, the court has taken cognizance and has issued summon to him. 4. After hearing the parties and on going through the record, I find that the Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. What are the materials against the petitioners has not been mentioned in the impugned order. In a most mechanical way, the impugned order has been passed. What are the materials, which surfaced against the petitioner for issuance of summon against him, has not been mentioned. The order taking cognizance and order issuing summon, are two different orders, which operate on different field. In a most mechanical way, the impugned order has been passed. What are the materials, which surfaced against the petitioner for issuance of summon against him, has not been mentioned. The order taking cognizance and order issuing summon, are two different orders, which operate on different field. This Court in the case of "Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors." (supra) has passed the detailed order discussing the provisions and requirement of order under Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. and the nature of the order to be passed. 5. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order passed by this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order dated 27.05.2019 being not in consonance with the provisions of law, needs to be set aside. The impugned order dated 27.05.2019, passed in Complaint Case No. 4891 of 2018 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 7. It be noted that this Court has not entered into the factual aspect of the case. 8. This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.