There was no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed orders while issuing summons. The process issued to the accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. 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 to 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 petitioner’s counsel also submitted that the learned Magistrate had power to differ from the opinion of the Investigating Officer, but he was required to give reasons for the same. 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 Hon’ble Court after going through all the submissions and facts held that “It is well settled 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… Accordingly, 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… This criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.”
Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu