The court affirmed that disobeying summons is a serious offense under IPC, and the evaluation of merits occurs at trial, not at the cognizance stage.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.3952 of 2024 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 174 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the case on being transferred is now pending in the Special Court, MP/MLA Cases, Ranchi and consequential reliefs.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant of complaint case no.3952 of 2024, as an officer of Investigating Agency under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, is the Investigating Officer of ECIR/RNZO/25/2023 and the said ECIR/RNZO /25/2023 was registered on the basis of the information collected in connection with Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.272 of 2023. Bhanu Pratap Prasad was the named accused person in Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.272 of 2023 along with unknown accused persons. It was revealed that Bhanu Pratap Prasad was also an associate of the petitioner. The said Bhanu Pratap Prasad had hidden the register pertaining to the landed property admeasuring 8.86 acres approximately, which landed property is in possession of the petitioner; at his home i.e. the home of Bhanu Pratap Prasad and other connecting materials were also recovered from the said Bhanu Pratap Prasad. During the course of investigation of the said ECIR/RNZO/25/2023, the petitioner was summoned to personally appears for his statement in regard to all properties acquired/possessed by him. During the course of the investigation, seven summons were issued to him which were disobeyed by the petitioner, by citing frivolous reasons and evading the investigation by colouring the summons to be politically motivated. The details of the summons, the date of appearance of the petitioner mentioned in each of such summons, the reply received from the petitioner for his non-appearance, have been mentioned in detail in para-6 of the complaint. It appears that serial no.1 to 6 are summons while serial no.7 is a letter issued to the petitioner to provide a convenient date, time and place for recording his statement. It is alleged that the petitioner deliberately disregarded the summons providing baseless pleas. The statement of the petitioner was recorded on 20.01.2024 and then on 31.01.2024 after making vigorous efforts, the petitioner was finally arrested on 31.01.2024 after recording his statement under Section 50 of PMLA Act, 2002. It is further alleged that the petitioner has wilfully and knowingly disobeyed the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA Act, 2002. It was also alleged that the petitioner who was summoned, was bound to attend in person in terms of Section 50(4) of PMLA Act, 2002. Section 63(4) of PMLA Act, 2002 envisages that a person who intentionally disobeys the direction issued under Section 50 of PMLA Act, 2002 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further alleged that the petitioner is hampering the investigation of a serious offence of money laundering, involving proceeds of crime worth rupees several hundred crores and despite being a public servant, the petitioner has chosen to remain non-cooperative and reluctant to join investigation