Patna High Court
AJEET KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
A summons order must be based on a reasoned satisfaction that the allegations constitute an offence; a cryptic, non‑speaking order that fails to disclose such satisfaction is invalid and must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioners Ajeet Kumar and Indrajeet Kumar sought to quash a summons order dated 17-12-2019 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 IPC despite the charge‑sheet indicating that they were not involved. The petitioners argued that the magistrate’s order was cryptic, non‑speaking and lacked any application of mind, contrary to Supreme Court precedents. The State opposed, contending that the magistrate had duly differed with the final report and taken cognizance. The High Court examined the requirement that a magistrate must be satisfied on the ground for proceeding and must disclose that satisfaction, citing Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Delhi Race Club judgments. Finding the order to be a mechanical issuance of summons without reasoned satisfaction, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the magistrate’s summons order, being cryptic and non‑speaking, satisfies the requirement of applying mind under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the magistrate had sufficient satisfaction on the ground for proceeding to take cognizance of the petitioners.
- Whether the order should be quashed and set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 202, 204, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 504
Subjects
- summons
- cognizance
- cryptic order
- Section 482 CrPC
- magistrate
- quashing
- Indian Penal Code
- due process
- application of mind
Judgment
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34925 of 2020(9) dt.02-02-2026
2/5
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34925 of 2020(9) dt.02-02-2026
3/5
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
silent spectator at the time of recording of
preliminary evidence before summoning of the
accused. The Magistrate has to carefully
scrutinize 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.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34925 of 2020(9) dt.02-02-2026
4/5
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi
Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in (2024) 10
SCC 690 has held as under:
“30. The aforesaid aspect could be
said to have been completely lost sight of by the
High Court, while rejecting the application filed
by the appellant herein under Section 482CrPC,
seeking quashing of the summoning order.
31. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir
Mohammad Tunda [Mehmood Ul Rehman v.
Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] , this Court held thus :
(SCC p. 430, para 22)
“22. … The satisfaction on
the ground for proceeding would mean
that the facts alleged in the complaint
would constitute an offence, and when
considered along with the statements
recorded, would, prima facie, make the
accused answerable before the court. …
In other words, the Magistrate is not to
act as a post office in taking cognizance
of each and every complaint filed before
him and issue process as a matter of
course. There must be sufficient
indication in the order passed by the
Magistrate that he is satisfied that the
allegations in the complaint constitute an
offence and when considered along with
the statements recorded and the result of
inquiry or report of investigation under
Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is
answerable before the criminal court,
there is ground for proceeding against
the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by
issuing process for appearance.
Application of mind is best demonstrated
by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction.
… To be called to appear before the
criminal court as an accused is serious
matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect
and image in society. Hence, the process
of criminal court shall not be made a
weapon of harassment.”
(emphasis
supplied)
32. The principle of law discernible
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34925 of 2020(9) dt.02-02-2026
5/5
from the aforesaid decision is that issuance of
summons is a serious matter and, therefore,
should not be done mechanically and it should be
done only upon satisfaction on the ground for
proceeding further in the matter against a person
concerned based on the materials collected
during the inquiry.
9. In view of the facts of the case and also in view of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Pepsi
Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (supra) and also in
the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (supra),
this appeal is allowed.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
17.12.2019 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to
the concerned Court below for consideration of the final form
afresh in accordance with law.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…