Jharkhand High Court
Shiv Shankar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 24 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:8433 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1389 of 2024
------
Shiv Shankar Singh, aged about 44 years, S/o Late Baba Singh,
Resident of Tapowan Colony, Post Office-Kokar, Police Station-
Sadar (Ranchi), District-Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Rupa Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order taking
cognizance dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Ghatsila, East Singhbhum in connection with Galudih P.S. Case No.29 of
2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.356 of 2017 and a further prayer has
also been made to quash the order taking cognizance dated 03.07.2024
passed by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila in the said case.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the accused person
of Galudih P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 inter alia the allegation against the
petitioner is that the petitioner was assisting in concealment of stolen
property. Police after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet
1 Cr. M.P. No.1389 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:8433 )
inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offences
punishable under Section 419, 420, 414 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police, the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum took cognizance of the said
offences in respect of which the charge sheet was submitted. The co-
accused person namely Ram Avtar Rajgariya @ Ram Avtar Rajgarhia filed
Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 challenging the said order dated 20.12.2018
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum. The
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2019 passed in the
said Cr.M.P. found that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East
Singhbhum while issuing summons has not whispered as to what are the
materials to proceed against the petitioner, thus, it was observed that
there is no application of judicial mind in passing the order impugned; as
the court has not formed opinion that there are sufficient grounds to
proceed and as the order impugned does not reflect any application of
judicial mind, reliying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Cr. Appeal No.1843 of 2019 dated 05.12.2019 and set aside the
order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila,
East Singhbhum whereby cognizance has been taken against the
petitioner, but it was observed that the Magistrate is at liberty to proceed
further against the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. Another co-accused namely Vishal Kumar Shah @ Vishal Shah also
filed Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022 with the self-same prayer and vide order
dated 07.09.2022 another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the
2 Cr. M.P. No.1389 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:8433 )
order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila,
East Singhbhum whereby cognizance has been taken against the
petitioner of that Cr.M.P. for the offences punishable under Section 419,
420, 414 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequent upon the same when
in this Cr.M.P., it was submitted by the petitioner that the learned ACJM,
Ghatsila has not passed any order, though in both the orders passed in the
said two criminal miscellaneous petitions, the Co-ordinate Benches given
liberty to the learned ACJM, Ghatsila to proceed further in accordance
with law; bypassing express order in this criminal miscellaneous petition,
report was called for from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East
Singhbhum as to why a fresh reasoned and speaking order in respect of
the cognizance has not been passed. Consequent upon receipt of such
orders, the learned ACJM, Ghatsila has passed a reasoned order and has
taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 414 &
34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and one Rama Shankar
Singh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated
03.07.2024 is the second cognizance in respect of the petitioner which is
not sustainable in law. It is next submitted that in the impugned order, it
has not been mentioned by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila as to though
charge sheet has been submitted against 4 persons, why it has mentioned
that cognizance of the offence is taken against only two of the persons and
why it did not find it proper to proceed against the rest two persons
3 Cr. M.P. No.1389 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:8433 )
against whom charge sheet has also been submitted. It is lastly submitted
that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P and submits that cognizance of the offences is taken by a court
and cognizance is not taken against the accused persons, so the
consequences of the orders passed by the co-ordinate benches dated
10.12.2019 in Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 and order dated 07.09.2022 in
Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022 is that the cognizance of the offence taken by the
order dated 20.12.2018 stands set aside because of the same being not a
reasoned order, but since both the co-ordinate benches have given the
liberty to the learned Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with
law; the only option open for the learned ACJM, Ghatsila was to pass
fresh cognizance order, so no illegality has been committed by the learned
ACJM, Ghatsila in passing the impugned order. Therefore, it is submitted
that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. 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 both the co-ordinate benches have relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Mahilpal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Another dated 05.12.2019 passed
in Cr. Appeal No.1843 of 2019.
8. True it is that in the said case of Mahilpal vs. Rajesh Kumar @
Polia & Another dated 05.12.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal No.1843 of 2019,
4 Cr. M.P. No.1389 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:8433 )
in para-23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have mentioned that
merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and
circumstances of the case” does not sub-serve the purpose of a reasoned
judicial order, but such observation was made not in respect of an order
passed by a Magistrate in respect of the cognizance of the offences on the
basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police rather the same was
observed in respect of an order of the Single Judge of the High Court
passed in a bail order; without a sound exercise of judicial discipline for
an order granting or rejecting bail, to record the reasons which have
waived with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power.
9. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of issuing summons
to the accused based on a police report, Magistrate is not required to
record any reason, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta
reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 paragraph-23 of which reads as under:-
“23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police
report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the
charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence
collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating
officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the
investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of
the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules
of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted
at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-
sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public
Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The
court thus has the advantage of the police report along with
the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section
190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of
an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate
directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an
offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not5 Cr. M.P. No.1389 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:8433 )required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases
instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required
to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an
order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject
to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report
and other documents and satisfying himself that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case
based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the
summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to
record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law
or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet
is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required
to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for
not taking it on file.” (Emphasis supplied)
10. It is further pertinent to mention here that the interference with the
police report at the stage of taking cognizance by the Magistrate is limited
as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3
SCC 659, paragraph-15 of which reads as under:-
“15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the
complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from
seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in
their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which
offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts
disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the
negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer
prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which
constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any
reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into
the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had
been conducted. But then a further question arises as to
whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the
Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking
cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already
stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police
report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking
cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court
only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218
or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means
that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the
prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the6 Cr. M.P. No.1389 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:8433 )stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state
of facts the appropriate sections which according to the
prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed.
Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage
to submit whether the charge under a particular provision
should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a
case based on police report to determine whether the charge
can be framed and a particular section can be added or
removed depending upon the material collected during
investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the
charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied)wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically laid
down the law that if the investigating authorities for any reason
whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet
based on the F.I.R. on which investigation has been conducted, the
Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after
submission of the charge-sheet, cannot fill up the lacunae and the
Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or
subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance; as the same would be
permissible for the trial court only at the time of framing the charge.
11. Be that as it may since it is a settled principle of law that the
cognizance of the offence is taken and cognizance is not taken against the
accused persons, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
consequences of the orders dated 10.12.2019 in Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019
and order dated 07.09.2022 in Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022, the cognizance of
the offences taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East
Singhbhum has been set aside.
12. The consequence of the observation made in both the orders that
the Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law
7 Cr. M.P. No.1389 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:8433 )
means the Magistrate must have passed a fresh order in respect of the
cognizance has the order of cognizance watch not quashed on merits but
the same was quashed because of lack of reasoning. There was no bar for
the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences nor was any
direction given not to pass summoning orders against two petitioners of
the said Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 and Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022, if the
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate found sufficient material for
the same. Therefore, in case the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate found in any justifiable reason not to pass any summoning
order against two of the accused persons out of the four accused persons
against whom charges sheet was submitted than in that case, it must
mention the reasons as to why it is not passing the summoning order
against two out of the four accused persons against whom charges sheet
has been submitted. After going through the impugned order, this court
finds that though the charge sheet was submitted against four accused
persons but in the order dated 03.07.2024 there is no whisper by the
learned ACJM, Ghatsila passed in G.R. Case No.356 of 2017 as to why it
felt it not proper to proceed against other two accused persons of the case
being the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 and Cr.M.P. No.2188 of
2022 against whom charge sheet was also submitted.
13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the order
dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila in connection with
Galudih P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.356 of
8 Cr. M.P. No.1389 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:8433 )
2017 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set
aside.
14. The learned ACJM, Ghatsila is directed to pass a fresh order in
respect of the charge sheet submitted by the police; in accordance with
law, without being prejudiced by this order.
15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 24th of March, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 28/03/2026
9 Cr. M.P. No.1389 of 2024