The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Magistrate to indicate the application of mind and disclose prima facie materials before taking cognizance in a complaint case, as mandated by Section 203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vishwanath Ray, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Arpit Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 91 of 2016 including order taking cognizance dated 25.05.2017 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

3. O.P. No. 2 has filed the complaint case alleging therein that the accused-petitioner had good relation with the complainant. The accused-petitioner contacted to the complainant and told that he is in urgent need of money and therefore, he requested the complainant to give him Rs. 85,000/-. The complainant agreed to give Rs. 80,000/- to the petitioner with the condition that he would execute a sale deed of 20 decimals of land under Khata No. 65, Plot No. 1039, Mouza Bindomoh, P.S. Nawalshahi, District Koderma and to this effect the accused-petitioner had executed an agreement on 29.01.2002. It is further alleged that on several occasions the complainant requested the petitioner for execution of sale deed but the petitioner every time took excuses and lastly the complainant came to know that rent receipt of the petitioner has not been issued and hence he will not execute the sale deed. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice on 13.10.2015 to the petitioner but the accused-petitioner denied to execute the sale deed. It is further alleged that neither the accused executed sale deed nor returned a sum of Rs. 85,000/- to the complainant moreover the accused threatened the complainant.

4. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegations are false. He submits that assuming that the contents are correct, only civil case is made out whereas petitioner has been implicated in criminal case. He further submits that agreement is of the year 2002 and the complaint has been filed in the year, 2016. He further submits that cognizance order is not in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Arpit Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioner as the petitioner has taken Rs. 85,000/- inspite of that he has not executed sale deed in favour of O.P. No. 2.

6. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record. It appears that on non-execution of sale deed by the petitioner, the complaint has been filed by the O.P. No. 2. The agreement is of the year 2002 and the complaint has been filed in the year, 2016. On perusal of cognizance order dated 25.05.2017, it transpires that cognizance order is not in accordance with law. In such type of cases where civil allegations are made and if the Court is taking cognizance with regard to criminal case, prima facie materials are required to be disclosed against the accused, which is lacking in the case in hand. Learned court has not disclosed what are the prima facie materials against the petitioner and has taken cognizance. Reference may be made to case of “Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others” reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610 wherein para 33, 34 and 35 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“33. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to the accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint, in Mehmood-Ul-Rehman, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 430, para 22)

“22. … The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismis