Point of Law : 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.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Nitish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State.

2. This petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing 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.

4. The prosecution story in the FIR is that the complaint petition being Complaint Case No.163/2019 was filed by the complainant namely Godawari Devi, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of FIR and accordingly the present FIR has been lodged alleging therein that on 14.05.2019, all the accused persons were making drainage and the complainant was also doing the same and all the accused gathered there and started abusing the complainant and for that complainant's son informed the O/c of Pathrol Police Station. On 14.05.2019 at 04:00 p.m., accused namely Abhay Kumar Jha clutched the complainant by her hair and dragged her to the road, where all the accused persons torn her dress and Abhay Kumar Jha forcefully opened her mouth and pour the stool into her mouth with statement that the complainant is a witch. It was further alleged that all the accused snatched a silver chain of 5 grams worth Rs.4,000/-and a payal of silver of 8 grams worth Rs.6,500/-and also alleged that the complainant is a witch who use to kill children and cattle.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter was investigated by the police and after investigation the police has not sent up the petitioner for trial and submitted final report in favour of the petitioners showing their name in column 12 of the final report bearing Final Report No.20/2019 dated 31.12.2019 showing that offences non-cognizable. After submission of final report in favour of the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323/504/34 of IPC vide order dated 14.09.2020 although the Investigating Officer after investigation not sent up for trial to these petitioners. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners in a mechanical manner and without assigning any reason as to why he is differing from the opinion of the Investigating Officer, who after investigation not sent up these petitioners for trial. He also submits that the learned Magistrate has power to differ from the opinion of the Investigating Officer, but in that condition he has to assign reason as to why he is differing from the opinion of the Investigating Officer.

6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that it is well within the domain of the Magistrate to proceed further if he comes to a conclusion that there is prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners.

7. In view of the above facts, the Court has examined the F.I.R as well as complaint petition. The police after investigation the police has not sent up the petitioners for trial and submitted the final report in favour of the petitioners.

8. In the judgment rendered in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, it has been held that the proceeding can be quashed under section 482 of the Code and it is held in paragraph no.12 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below :

“12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the cont