JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.09.2017 passed in Lohardaga P.S. Case No.92 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.372 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 170 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summon against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while posted as Dairy Technical Officer, Lohardaga for several years enabled the co-accused Ajit Kumar Sharma to never perform his duty as District Dairy Development Officer. There is also allegation that the petitioner used to impersonate as District Dairy Development Officer and suppressed the material fact even before the Deputy Commissioner that he is a Dairy Technical Officer and not a District Dairy Development Officer. After investigation, the police found that the offences punishable under Sections 170, 417, 419 of the Indian Penal Code are made out and submitted charge sheet. 4. It is needless the mention and it is undisputed that the Dairy Development Officer is a public servant. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga vide order dated 21.09.2017 passed in Lohardaga P.S. Case No.92 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.372 of 2016 upon receipt of the legal sanction order and upon perusal of the charge-sheet, has taken cognizance for the said offences. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner handed over charge of the District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga to Mr. Ajit Kumar on 14.07.2014. It is next submitted that the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga is a non-speaking order as nothing has been mentioned therein as to what are the materials which necessitates issuing of summon to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 21.09.2017 is bad in law, hence, the same be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 21.09.2017 is bad in law, hence, the same be set aside. 7. Learned A.A.G.-III appearing for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 21.09.2017 passed in Lohardaga P.S. Case No.92 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.372 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has taken cognizance against the petitioner. It is next submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is not a District Dairy Development Officer. Drawing attention of this Court to running page-26 of the brief which is the letter submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, it is submitted by learned A.A.G.-III appearing for the State that therein the petitioner has admitted that even after handing over the charge of District Dairy Development Officer still he used to put signatures on various reports as District Dairy Development Officer. So, there is a clear cut case to establish the allegations against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to quash the order dated 21.09.2017 passed in Lohardaga P.S. Case No.92 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.372 of 2016 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta & Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424 para-8 of which reads as under:- 8. “Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not.”(Emphasis supplied) 9. At the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate is not to record detailed reasons as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Gaba & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423 , paragraph nos. 30 of which reads as under:- “30. Even though at the stage of issuing process to the accused the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set the criminal proceedings into motion.Xxxxxxxx (emphasis supplied) It is also a settled principle of law as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true prospective without sufficient material as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 , paragraph No.27 of which reads as under :- “27. vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 , paragraph No.27 of which reads as under :- “27. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, as the case may be, as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka & Another v. Pastor P. Raju reported in (2006) 6 SCC 728 paragraph-10 of which reads as under: “10. Several provisions in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure use the word “cognizance”. The very first section in the said Chapter viz. Section 190 lays down how cognizance of offences will be taken by a Magistrate. However, the word “cognizance” has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dictionary meaning of the word “cognizance” is — “judicial hearing of a matter”. The meaning of the word has been explained by judicial pronouncements and it has acquired a definite connotation. Section 190 lays down how cognizance of offences will be taken by a Magistrate. However, the word “cognizance” has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dictionary meaning of the word “cognizance” is — “judicial hearing of a matter”. The meaning of the word has been explained by judicial pronouncements and it has acquired a definite connotation. The earliest decision of this Court on the point is R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., ( AIR 1951 SC 207 ) wherein it was held: (SCR p. 320) “… ‘taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Now, coming to the facts of this case there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he impersonated as a public servant being the District Dairy Development Officer. The same has been admitted by him in his letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, the copy of which has been annexed with this Cr.M.P. at page No.26. There is allegation against the petitioner of cheating and cheating by impersonation. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the order dated 21.09.2017 passed in Lohardaga P.S. Case No.92 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.372 of 2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. 13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, is dismissed and consequently the interim order stands vacated.