The magistrate must apply mind and disclose reasons before taking cognizance, and the order must reflect the magistrate's satisfaction and application of mind to the facts and law governing the issue.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, the learned assisting-counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) in Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.782 of 2014, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.706 of 2014. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1224 of 2014; Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned Spl.P.P appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014, Mr. V.S. Sahay, the learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.706 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No. 827 of 2014, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.1224 of 2014, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014 and Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014.

2. In all these petitions, a common question of facts and law as well as the F.I.R and the order taking cognizance are under challenge and that is why all these petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties.

3. In all these petitions, the prayer is made for quashing of the Koderma P.S. Case No.11 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.44 of 2014, registered for the offence under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 466, 474, 477A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 82(D) of the Registration Act against the petitioners. The order taking cognizance dated 02.01.2021 is under challenge in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021 so far as the petitioner namely Neeraj Verma @ Neeraj Kr. Verma is concerned. The cognizance order is also under challenge in Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014.

4. The First Information Report (FIR) is registered alleging therein that the prosecution case has been instituted on the basis of written statement of the informant namely Jitendra Kumar Deo, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma stating therein that on 12.08.2013 sanction for the Registration of Sale of the land appertaining to Khata No. 01, Plot nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 total area 427 acres situated at Village Taral, within Domchanch Anchal (Thana no. 10) has been given by Sri Manoj Kishore Rukhaiyar, Sub-Registrar, Registry Office, Koderma vide Eleven Sale Deeds bearing nos. 4237, 4238, 4239, 4240, 4241, 4242, 4243, 4244, 4245, 4246 and 4247 all dated 12.08.2013.

It is alleged in the FIR that there is no plot over and above Plot no. 10 at Village - Terai within Domchanch Prakhand (Thana no. 10) and therefore. Plot no. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 are baseless and imaginary plots and therefore, no registration can be made for the aforesaid imaginary lands of the aforesaid plots and therefore the registration is false and forged.

It is further alleged in the FIR that identity card given by all the venders are fake and forged and the documents have been prepared with the help of forged identity card.

It is further alleged in the FIR that false identification cards have been submitted by the identifiers of the sellers of the land and therefore, all of them are guilty for impersonation.

It is further alleged in the FIR that the affidavits filed by the purchaser, namely, the representative of