0

There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons: High Court Of Jharkhand

No detailed order was required for passing any order for summoning the accused but in a case where the Final Report was already submitted in favour of the accused and the Magistrate intended to proceed on a complaint petition, then he was required to make reasons for differing with the Final Report. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi in the matter of Binoy Kumar Jha @ Binay Kr. Jha and Ors Vs. The State of Jharkhand [Cr.M.P. No. 565 of 2021].

 The facts of the case were associated with a petition to quash an order passed by the S.D.J.M Madhupur in relation with Pathrol P.S. Case No.56/2019 dated 14.09.2020. In the FIR it was alleged that a drainage was built by the accused. The complainant Godawari Devi did the same, aut all the accused person began to abuse the complainant by dragging her by her hair, tore her dress, forcefully opened her mouth and poured the stool into her mouth with the statement that the complainant was a witch. Further, the accused people a silver chain and silver payal and they stated that the complainant was a witch who killed children and cattle.

 The counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the police after investigation did not send the petitioner for trial. The final report in favour of the petitioners showing their name in column 12 of the final report was submitted which showed that the offences were non-cognizable. It was stated that the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor for the state stated that the Magistrate have the power to proceed against the petitioners if there was a prima facie case. The petitioner’s counsel also submitted that the learned Magistrate had the power to differ from the views of the Investigating Officer, but he was required to give reasons for the same.

 The Hon’ble Court after going through all the submissions and facts held that “… no detailed order is required for passing any order for summoning the accused but in a case where Final Report has already been submitted in favour of the accused and the Magistrate is intending to proceed on a complaint petition, he is required to make reasons of differing with the Final Report, which has not been done in the case in hand. Putting the criminal proceeding in motion is a serious thing as held in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to set criminal proceeding in motion is a serious matter, which requires to be looked into minutely… the order taking cognizance dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur in connection with Pathrol P.S. Case No.56/2019 is hereby quashed.”

The criminal miscellaneous petition was, therefore, allowed and disposed of. 

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by- Bipasha Kundu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat