IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1455 of 2024 Shafique Anwar @ Safique Anwar, aged about 67 years, son of Abdul Aziz, resident of Jora Talab, P.O. + P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi.

… Petitioner - Versus -

The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party ------

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nand Kishore Ram, Advocate : Mr. Aman Kumar Rahul, Advocate ---

10/07.03.2025 Heard the parties.

The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2664 of 2016, whereby and wherein, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi has found the prima facie case to be true under Sections 323/379/420/34 of the I.P.C. in a very cryptic manner.

Attention has been drawn towards the order dated 16.05.2017 wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi has passed an order finding the prima facie case to be true in a very cryptic manner. No reason has been assigned in this order as to how the learned Judicial Magistrate has come to its Judicial satisfaction for finding the prima facie case to be true under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “JM Laboratories and Other Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another” as reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 208], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that;

“7. It will be relevant to refer to the summoning order which reads thus;

"Whereas your attendance is necessary to give evidence in a charge Sec. 18(a)(i) r/w Sec. 16(1)(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the accused M/s J.M.

Laboratories, Vill. Bhanat, P.O- Ghtti, Subathu Road, Solan (H.P.). You are hereby requested to appear in person before the Hon'ble Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool at 10:30 AM on the 10^th day of August

2023.

Given under my hand the seal of the court this day of July,2023.”

8. In the judgment and order of even date in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", we have observed thus:

“33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons.

34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC

749 (supra):

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. 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. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Mag