The absence of cogent reasons for the order taking cognizance in a criminal proceeding arising from a commercial transaction can lead to the quashing of the order, as established in legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha and Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, learned counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsels for the State and Mr. Raj Vardhan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. In both the petitions, common order taking cognizance as well as FIR are under challenge and that is why, both the petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties.

3. In these petitions, the prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 2/2009, corresponding to G.R. No. No. 08/2009, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatshila.

4. On the written complaint of the informant, the FIR has been registered, wherein, it has been alleged that he is the Director of Johar Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and his company is indulged in production of M.S. Ingot (Saria) and the same is also sold by the company to other company. It has been further alleged that one Mahesh Kumar and one Krishna Devi who are the Directors of Golden Rathi Star Industries contacted the informant and showing the desire to purchase the M.S. Ingot (Saria) and thereafter the same is supplied to the accused company by the informant company since 02.04.2008, thereafter, on 05.08.2008, all the accused persons requested the informant to supply two trucks of M.S. Ingot (Saria) for which they gave assurance that the payment against the said supplied item will be deposited very soon. On the said assurance, the said items has been sent but against that the payment has not been made to the informant by the accused persons after several request and reminders and also given threatening to the informant by the accused persons.

5. Learned counsels for the petitioners jointly submit that there were business transaction between the informant and the petitioners and the petitioners are Directors of Golden Rathi Star Industries. They further submit that there are allegations of non-payment of certain amount for supply of M.S. Ingot (Saria). They also submit that it has also been alleged that cheque, which was issued, has been bounced. They also submit that the company is not an accused and the learned court has not taken cognizance against the company. They also submit that for a civil wrong, FIR has been registered.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the petitioners are Directors of Golden Rathi Star Industries and there are allegations against them and in that view of the matter, the learned court has rightly passed the order taking cognizance.

7. Learned counsels for the State jointly submit that the learned court looking into the evidence, has passed the order taking cognizance. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record, contents of the FIR and the order taking cognizance. Prima-facie, it appears that for certain transaction, the case has been lodged, which is arising out of commercial transaction. The company is not made an accused and the allegations are there. Looking to the order taking cognizance, it transpires that the learned court has passed the order without providing any cogent reason and in that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 59 and Amresh Kumar Dhiraj vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2020 (1) JLJR 199.

9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 2/2009, corresponding to G.R. No. No. 08/2009, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magis