The High Court quashed the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner, holding that the cognizance order was cryptic and failed to meet the requirements of Section 204 Cr.P.C. under precedents like Pepsi Foods Ltd.
The entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 07.06.2014 is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1458 of 2015
Jagat Narayan Upadhayay, son of Durga Narayan Prasad, Resident of Rajabadi, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), District- Pakur (Jharkhand)
… Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
06/05.10.2021. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the opposite party-State.
-2-
Section 3 of the Prevention of Defacement of Public Property Act, 1987. He also submits that in a very cryptic manner, the learned court below has taken the cognizance against the petitioner.
“ 28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
-3-
summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
in the parameter of Section 204 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur in Pakuria P.S. Case No.16 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.195 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur is, hereby, quashed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned cognizance order under Section 188 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Defacement of Public Property Act, 1987 attracted Section 204 Cr.P.C.
Whether the criminal proceeding including the cognizance order should be quashed as it was cryptic and did not reflect that the magistrate applied his mind.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of U.P.Referred¶6
Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of U.P. (AIR 1968 Allahabad 100) · Who else cites this
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial MagistrateExplained¶28
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jagat Narayan Upadhayay
The State of Jharkhand
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
