JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party-State and Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard 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 criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing the order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No.179 of 2017, whereby, cognizance of the offences under Sections 409, 420, 477-A, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued against the petitioners.

4. A complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 on 09.02.2017, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.179 of 2017, wherein, it has been alleged that on 09.09.2004, the opposite party no.2 became the Principal of Jharkhand Commerce College, Dumri and he preferred a writ application being W.P.(S) No.631 of 2007 wherein an interim order was passed on 23.02.2007. It has also been alleged that the opposite party no.2 filed Title Suit No.7 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Giridih wherein an order was passed on 28.07.2008. In spite of such judicial orders and on 03.02.2012, the accused persons (petitioners), being in conspiracy with each other, opened an account in Dumri Branch of the Bank of India in the name of the College and withdrew a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- and misappropriated the same.

5. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners draws attention of the Court to the order dated 27.06.2019, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and the petitioners have been summoned in that case. By way of referring the impugned order, he submits that there is no satisfaction and there is no application of mind by the learned court below and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is bad in law. To buttress this argument, learned Senior counsel relied upon paragraphs 7, 8 and 16 of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jagat Narayan Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand & another in Cr. M.P. No. 148 of 2011, which was decided on 23.03.2021.

6. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 16 of the said judgment are quoted herein below :

“7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the order taking cognizance, it is also not reflected as to how the petitioner is involved in such crime as the petitioner was the Special Officer of Jhumri Telaiya Municipality. He further submits that the cognizance order is not in terms of the well settled procedure prescribed by this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Another, reported in 2020 (1) JLJR (Jhr).

8. Paragraph 22 of the said judgment is quoted herein below :

“22. The order taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and order issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., can very well a composite order but as observed, the application of mind would be different in both cases. This application of mind must be reflected in the order itself. The order should not be mechanical. Magistrate has to mention at least that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the persons and what are the prima-facie materials to proceed against them. He need not pass a detail judgment evaluating the materials, which are before him. The detail reasons as to why he is taking cognizance or issuing process are not to be mentioned but at least what are the bare minimum prima-facie materials against the accused-petitioners should be mentioned in the order issuing summon and prima facie what offence is alleged, in the o