IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34925 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2018 Thana- CHIKSAUR District- Nalanda ======================================================

1. Ajeet Kumar S/O Late Ramje Prasad R/O Village- Kamarathu, Post-

Musarhi, P.S.- Chiksaura, District- Nalanda

2. Indrajeet Kumar S/O Late Ramjee Prasad R/O Village- Kamarathu, Post-

Musarhi, P.S.- Chiksaura, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Naveen Kumar S/o Sri Munni Prasad R/o village- Kamarathu, Post-

Musarhi, P.S.- Chiksaura, District- Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

9 02-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

2. This application has been filed for the quashing of the order dated 17.12.2019 (incorrectly recorded as 17.12.2020) passed by the Learned ACJM-I, Hilsa, in Chiksaura P.S. Case No. 09/2018 (incorrectly recorded as 91/2018)/G.R. No. 217/18, whereby the Learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons against the petitioners, as well as other accused persons, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the institution of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer conducted an investigation and submitted a charge sheet on 31.12.2018, wherein none of the petitioners were found to be involved in the case. Consequently, the charge sheet was filed only against the accused persons, Subhash Yadav and Gurudev Prasad, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Despite this, the Learned ACJM-I, Hilsa, vide his order dated 17.12.2019 (incorrectly recorded as 17.12.2020 by the Learned Court below), took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate after differing with the final form has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submission has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Pepsi Foods Limited and Anr. vs.

Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749.

6. The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has opposed the application and has submitted that after considering the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate has differed with the final form and has taken cognizance. 7. I have considered the submissions of the parties.

From the perusal the impugned order, the same appears to be a cryptic and non-speaking order. The learned Magistrate has not discussed the merits of the case. The impugned order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is in teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC

749, wherein it has been held as follows:-

“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 on to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a s