Tarkeshwar Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:-

2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.07.2019 whereby and where under, cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code has been taken by the learned Magistrate.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner who is the accused person of Complaint Case No.28 of 2019 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma took in total Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant-opposite party no.2 by suppressing the material facts that there is some restriction in registration of the 2 Cr.M.P. No.3547 of 2019 land for selling of which the petitioner took said Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant-opposite party no.2.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no dispute regarding the land in question. The complainant has not filed any documents to show that the land in question is a gairmazarua land. It is next submitted that though no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner still, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated

15.07.2019 be quashed.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.07.2019 and submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner that since from the inception of the transaction, he has the intention to cheat the complainant and by suppressing the material facts that the said land cannot be registered still, dishonestly, induced the complainant and deceived him to deliver Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cheating. Hence, the material in the record prima facie discloses the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this petition being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that it is not necessary to pass a 3 Cr.M.P. No.3547 of 2019 detailed order giving detailed reasons while taking cognizance. The word ‘cognizance’ has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held in the case of S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 492, the Hon’ble Court has held in paragraph no.19 as under:- “19. The expression „cognizance‟ has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means „become aware of‟ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it cannot „to take notice of judicially‟. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.”

7. It is also a settled principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance and summoning of the accused the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant; as has been held in the case of Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta and Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC (424), paragraph 8 of which reads as under :- “8. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of 7 Cr.M.P. No. 2755 of 2020 cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. “(Emphasis supplied) 4 Cr.M.P. No.3547 of 2019 because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not, and a strong suspicion is enough to proceed further in a criminal proceeding at this stage.

8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is specific allegation against the petitioner of taking Rs.6,00,000/- for selling the land of the complainant-opposite party no.2 knowing pretty well that valid transfer of the said land cannot take place because of the restriction of the registration of the said land.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that there is no illegality committed by the learned court below in taking the cognizance of the offence.

10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. Consequently the interim order if any, passed in this case also stands vacated. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th March, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)