The court emphasized the importance of considering prima facie materials and the lack of requirement for strict standard of proof at the stage of issuing summons.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 29.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 158 of 2021, G.R. No. 253 of 2022, S.T. No. 161 of 2022, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag.

3. It has been alleged in the FIR that during crime checking at about 14:45 PM, the police official signalled a Fortuner Car to stop, but the driver tied to alight from the car and run away however he was stopped. On getting suspicious, they tried to find independent witnesses, but due to notoriety of the petitioner none come forward. It has also been alleged that one 9 MM country made pistol full with 8 cartridges and Rs.14,200/- were found and on that basis, the petitioner was arrested by the police. The learned court has taken cognizance vide order dated 29.01.2022.

4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has assailed the cognizance order on the ground that the learned court has not disclosed the prima facie material against the petitioner and has taken the cognizance order, which is against the mandate of law. He relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2019 SCC Online Jhar 2775.

5. Paragraph 25 of the said order is quoted herein-below:

“25. 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 order taking cognizance.”

6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 711 of 2018.

7. By way of relying these two judgments, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel submits that the cognizance order is bad in law.

8. Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that the learned court after looking into entire material, has taken the cognizance.

9. The Court has gone through the FIR as well as cognizance order and finds that from the body of the petitioner one 9 MM country made pistol full with 8 cartridges were recovered. There is no doubt that the court is required to disclose prima facie material against the accused, as held by this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj (supra). Looking to the cognizance order dated 29.01.2022, this Court finds that the learned court has gone through FIR, case diary, charge sheet, seizure list, confessional statement, sanction report and other materials and has also considered the statement of the witnesses contained in para 5, 6, 7, 21 and 22 of the case diary and thereafter he has taken the cognizance while passing the impugned order.

10. The mens rea can only be decided at the time of trial and not at the stage of issuing summons. When prosecution relies upon the materials, strict standard of proof is not to be applied at the stage of issuance of summons nor to examine