Madan Mohan Saha @ M.M.Saha vs State Of Jharkhand

The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They have no

complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

This case was listed/ supposed to be listed before the Lawazima Board for passing an order in respect of the defects, pointed out by the office.

Considering the pandemic situation where the Court has minimized the footfall of the lawyers and their Clerks in the Court, this court felt proper to get

all the cases listed before this Court so that the defects can be looked into at this stage only. Thus, this case is listed today before this Court directly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to ignore the defects and take up the matter on merits.

One of the defect is that the name of the Judge alongwith designation has not been mentioned in the impugned order, below the signature.

It is directed that henceforth the name of the Judge/Magistrate, who has passed the order, must be reflected below the signature of the concerned

Judge/Magistrate in the order.

This direction should be strictly followed by all the Judicial Officers of the State.

Rest of the defects stand ignored for the present. Heard the parties.

In this application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 18.03.2020, by which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406,

409, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken and, thereafter, summon has been issued to the petitioner to appear.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cognizance is never taken against an accused, rather it is taken against an offence. He

submits that the police, after investigation, submitted final form against this petitioner, but the court below, differing with the final report, took

cognizance and issued summon against this petitioner. He submits that the impugned order, which can be said to be a composite order of summoning

and taking cognizance, is absolutely cryptic, vague and non-speaking order. He further submits that requirement of Section 204 Cr.P.C. has not been

dealt with in the order impugned. He also submits that the court should have sufficiently satisfied itself before taking cognizance and while issuing

summons against the accused. He also submits that what are the materials for taking cognizance of the offence as alleged, has not be reflected in the

order impugned, which makes the impugned order defective.

After going through the impugned order, I find that the impugned order is absolutely cryptic and non-speaking. What are the materials against the

petitioner in the impugned order have not been mentioned. In a most mechanical way, the impugned order has been passed. This Court in the case of

Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors.- versus- State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199"", has passed the detailed order discussing the

provisions and requirement of order under Section 190 & 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.

Further, as the petitioner was not charge sheeted, it was incumbent upon the Court to pass a order giving reasons as to why he has differed with the

final report and why he is issuing summon to this petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order dated 18.03.2020 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down in law, thus, this application

stands allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2020 is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below to pass a fresh order in

accordance with the provisions of law.

This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to all the Judicial Officers of the State immediately

through FAX.