JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bishunpura P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 854 of 2017(S) registered for the offence under sections 147, 148, 302, 120B of the I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act including the order taking cognizance dated 22.02.2020, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Garhwa. 3. The F.I.R. was registered on 19.05.2017 alleging therein that on the written report of one Satyadeo Yadav, the informant of the case who addressed his application to the Officer In-charge of Bishunpura Police Station stating inter-alia that on 19.05.2017 at about 8.30 a.m. the informant accompanying with his elder brother and his nephew namely Niranjan Prasad Yadav, Bimlesh Yadav both sons of Uday Prasad Yadav was shot dead by Sanjeet Singh son of Bachu Singh. It is further alleged that Guddu Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Ramesh Singh all are the resident of Piprikala under Vishunpura Police Station in the District of Garhwa accompanying with said Sanjeet Singh. It is further alleged that except these four persons other miscreants were also accompanying armed with deadly weapon spelling out that no one should be saved, everybody should be killed. The genesis of the murder has been reflected as the cremation place is situated on the bank of river from where sand was being lifted by deploying the machines and trucks at the instance of Chhotan Singh @ Dharmendra Singh who is resident of Chhattisgarh and the said sand lifting was protested by the villagers and the information to that effect was also furnished before the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa. It is further alleged that in the same transaction one day before of date of occurrence Chhotan Singh @ Dharmendra Singh has come and extended threat to the localities whosoever will create nuisance in lifting of the coal will be done to death. 4. Mr. Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also earlier moved before this Court in Cr. 4. Mr. Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also earlier moved before this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 4292 of 2019 which was allowed by the order dated 13.02.2020 whereby cognizance order has been set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned court for passing the order afresh. He submits that the learned court has passed the order afresh on the point of cognizance on 22.02.2020. By way of referring the said cognizance order, he further submits that this order is not in accordance with law and the reasons are not assigned and the order of the Court has not been complied with and in view of that, it was remanded back and a fresh order has been passed which is again a cryptic order. On these grounds, he submits that cognizance order is bad in law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the F.I.R. and submits that the petitioner is the lessee of sand ghat and he is instrumental in threatening the villagers and others which has been alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that in view of the paragraph no. 54 of the case diary, CDR of the petitioner was found before the occurrence and this is a case of three-brutal murder of innocent people. He submits that the learned court after applying its judicial mind has taken the cognizance. 6. Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the impugned order is a well-reasoned order and this petitioner is having criminal antecedent and several criminal cases are pending against him. 7. In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. On perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that there is direct allegation against this petitioner for instigating the villagers and admittedly he is the lessee of sand ghat. In paragraph no. 54 of the case diary, the CDR of this petitioner was found in that locality. On perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that there is direct allegation against this petitioner for instigating the villagers and admittedly he is the lessee of sand ghat. In paragraph no. 54 of the case diary, the CDR of this petitioner was found in that locality. The learned court has taken cognizance pursuant to remand by this Court by order dated 22.02.2020 and has taken cognizance after looking to the F.I.R. and the charge sheet as well as the case diary which has been recorded in the said order and when the learned court is having the materials in charge-sheet on record, it is not required to pass reasoned order. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge sheet and for not taking on file. In the present case, cognizance of the offence has been taken by taking into consideration the charge sheet filed by the police for the offence, the order for issuance of process does not suffer from any illegality. Moreover, when the learned court after remand in the first round of litigation passed a well-reasoned order, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, Cr. M.P. No. 1236 of 2020 is dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. I.A. if any, also stands disposed of.