JUDGMENT : Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. Heard Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned APP for the State duly assisted by Mr. Bashishth Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha, West Champaran in Bagaha P.S. Case No.463 of 2015, whereby the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 307, 323, 325, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) against the petitioners. 3. The prosecution case is based upon written report of one Munna Khan, the informant of this case on 15.11.2015 at about 8.30 A.M. to the Officer-in-Charge, Bagaha Police Station stating therein that on 15.11.2015 at about 5:30 A.M. on the noise of several persons, he woke-up and opened the gate of his house. The informant further alleged that these petitioners along with five others were constructing hut on his land and on protest, the informant was caught by some accused persons and was assaulted by fist and slaps. On alarm, his sons, namely, Arif, Sanu, Janus and his nephew Afroj came to his rescue and upon this, Afroj was assaulted by khantiby the accused Azad Khan and after sustaining injury, he fell down. Accused Sonu Khan and Pappu Khan assaulted by farsa to his son Sanu Khan. Accused Bablu Khan and Hakik Khan assaulted the informant by lathi. When the Bhabhi of the informant, namely, Saida Khatoon came there, accused Majre Alam and Raju assaulted by leg, fist and lathi. The accused Khus Mohammad and Monu Khan assaulted his eldest son, namely, Arif by lathi, fist etc. On alarm, the villagers assembled and took the injured in Hospital for treatment. 4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the police after investigation submitted charge sheet No.9/2015 dated 27.01.2016 exonerating petitioners, where during investigation just before submitting aforesaid charge-sheet, an application was filed before learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha by the informant stating thereof that the injured witnesses were not examined during investigation and, as such, their statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) were not recorded. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that Investigating Officer of this case through a detailed judicial order dated 13.04.2014, was directed to record the statement of injured witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC and a show-cause was also issued to him that as to why he not be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 218, 219 and 221 of the IPC. Subsequent to the said order, the re-investigation was made to the extent recording the statement of injured witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC for which another charge-sheet was submitted bearing No.145/2016 dated 13.05.2016, where again, the petitioners were not sent up and were exonerated. It is further pointed out by learned senior counsel that the manner in which the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance in this matter is apparent from Annexure-5, which is charge-sheet no.145/2016, where in column no.10, which is meant for seized articles, a general order in very cryptic manner was made to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 307, 323, 325, 341 and 504 of the IPC against all accused persons on 16.06.2016, which subsequently reduced in form of order on that very date. 5. It is pointed out by learned senior counsel that by differing with police finding of investigation, where petitioners were exonerated even after recording the statement of injured witnesses, without supplying any reasons, learned Trial Court took cognizance against petitioners in very mechanical and cryptic manner, which is against the established principle of law. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Almohan Das v. State of W.B., [1968 SCC OnLine SC 85]. 6. Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned APP for the State duly assisted by Mr. Bashishtha Narain Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 while opposing the application submitted that taking cognizance is a subjective satisfaction of the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and on that score, the order of cognizance cannot be set aside. 7. It would be apposite to reproduce the order of cognizance dated 16.06.2016 by learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha on final form in column 10 submitted by police as well as the order dated 16.06.2016, which are as under:- 8. 7. It would be apposite to reproduce the order of cognizance dated 16.06.2016 by learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha on final form in column 10 submitted by police as well as the order dated 16.06.2016, which are as under:- 8. It would be apposite to reproduce Para-9 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as passed in the matter of Almohan Das case (supra), which runs as under:- “9. It was contended before us that under Section 209(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge may be framed only if in the view of the committing Magistrate the evidence on record is sufficient to justify conviction of the accused. Section 209 of the Code provides: “When the evidence referred to in Section 208 sub-sections (1) and (3), has been taken, and he has (if necessary) examined the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, such Magistrate shall, if he finds that there are not sufficient grounds for committing the accused person for trial, record his reasons and discharge him, unless it appears to the Magistrate that such person should be tried before himself or some other Magistrate, in which case he shall proceed accordingly.” In terms Section 209 applies to cases which are instituted otherwise than on a police report. But the principle underlying that section applies to cases which are instituted on a police report. A Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is his duty to discharge the accused : if there is some evidence on which a conviction may reasonably be based, he must commit the case. The Magistrate at that stage has no power to evaluate the evidence for satisfying himself of the guilt of the accused. The question before the Magistrate at that stage is whether there is some credible evidence which would sustain a conviction.” 9. The Magistrate at that stage has no power to evaluate the evidence for satisfying himself of the guilt of the accused. The question before the Magistrate at that stage is whether there is some credible evidence which would sustain a conviction.” 9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal submissions, it appears that the cognizance order passed by learned Jurisdictional Magistrate was taken by endorsing the order of cognizance in column-10 of the charge-sheet No.145/2016 dated 13.05.2016 itself, which is meant for seizure items connected with occurrence in issue. It also appears that no reason was supplied while taking a different note with the finding of investigation by learned jurisdictional Magistrate, particularly, when petitioners were exonerated even after availability of statement of injured witnesses as recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. 10. Accordingly, by taking a guiding note of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as passed in the matter of Almohan Das Case (supra) and in view of fact as discussed above, the impugned order taking cognizance dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha, West Champaran in Bagaha P.S. Case No.463 of 2015 is, hereby, quashed and set aside qua petitioners with a direction to the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law by supplying reasons while differing with investigation report, as to avoid the impression of mechanical and cryptic approach. 11. The application stands allowed to aforesaid extent. 12. Office is directed to communicate a copy of the judgment to the court of learned Jurisdictional Magistrate without delay.