A Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing a summoning order when taking cognizance based on a police report, and a compromise with a co-accused does not justify quashing proceedings for non-compoundable offenses.

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Gua (Bara Jamda) P.S. Case No. 31 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 605 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under 379, 420, 424, 425, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and has passed summoning order inter alia against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons was instrumental in withdrawal of Rs.10,70,000/- from the personal Current Account of the informant on the basis of the cheque stolen from the informant, after forging the signature of the informant on the cheque and violating the rules and procedures of the Bank concerned by not confirming from the drawee Bank about high value cheque, cleared the cheque. Police during the investigation of the case, found the allegations against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the said offences inter alia against the petitioner and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has taken cognizance of the said offences as already indicated above and passed summoning order inter alia against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false. The main accused is Pawan Kumar Saw with whom the informant has settled the dispute and also filed the compromise petition before the learned Sessions Judge. No independent witness has supported the case of the informant. The order dated 09.01.2024 is not a speaking order. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and other offences which was found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and merely because the co-accused has compromised with the informant that the offences in respect of which, the cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, are not compoundable offence; certainly, the entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed and set aside. It is next submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa taking cognizance on the basis of the police report, is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the records, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner