Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 749 (JHR)

Rajkumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-28

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Surbhi, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 21.09.2016 passed in connection with Gua (Badajamda) P.S. Case No. 21/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 322 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chaibasa. 3. F.I.R. has been lodged by District Mining Officer, Chaibasa alleging therein that processing, storage, sale and illegal transaction is being carried out at the instance of M/s Gopi Minerals, Badajamda, West Singhbhum. It is further alleged that the Mining Inspector has submitted the Inspection Report dated 30.03.2015 alleging therein that the illegal processing, storage, sale and transaction is being carried out by M/s Gopi Minerals, Badajamada through its proprietor Raj Kumar Singh, Station Road, Govind Tower Apartment, Barbil, Keojjhar, Odisha. It is further alleged that the said proprietor has neither had the license nor got it renewed in terms of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer Rules, 2007. It has also been pointed out that in terms of the physical verification, the report dated 16.06.2010 1200 MT of lumps and fines of 30.400 MT was available. On 31.01.2012 size plus lump of amounting 1822.750 MT fines and the availability of fines was 17948.400 MT which goes to show that on the basis of physical verification report dated 30.1.2012 the excess of 622.750 MT size lumps was sold and from the date of verification amount of 11090.80 MT illegal iron ores excavated which attracts the panel offence in terms of Minor Transit Rule 2005 under sections 3, 8, 9 and also Jharkhand Mineral Policy Rules, 2007 and 4/21 of the MMDR Act, 1957. 4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits cognizance order is bad in law. He submits that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and not against the offence. He further submits that prima facie material has not been disclosed in the cognizance order. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order. 6. The Court has gone through the cognizance order dated 21.09.2016 and finds that this order is not in accordance with law. He further submits that prima facie material has not been disclosed in the cognizance order. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order. 6. The Court has gone through the cognizance order dated 21.09.2016 and finds that this order is not in accordance with law. There is no doubt that for taking cognizance a detail order is not required to be passed by the court however what are the prima facie materials against the petitioner is required to be disclosed in the cognizance order, which is lacking in the case in hand. In the case of “M/s GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. M/s India Infoline Limited, reported in (2013) (2) East Cr. C. 326 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that before issuing summons the Court has to record its satisfaction that prima facie case is made out against the accused. The satisfaction is envisaged under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and not under section 190 Cr.P.C. This satisfaction has to be recorded only for the purpose of issuing process. The Magistrate has to see whether there are materials to proceed against the accused person. Consideration for taking cognizance is different than that of issuing process. One is directed towards the offence and the other is towards the persons. This cannot be mixed, even if a composite order is passed. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons analysis, order taking cognizance dated 21.09.2016 passed in connection with Gua (Badajamda) P.S. Case No. 21/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 322 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chaibasa, is hereby quashed. 8. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court for proceed afresh in accordance with law. 9. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.