( 2025:JHHC:37531 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.525 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 525 of 2022 1. Jamil Akhtar, aged about 71 years, son of Late Azam Munshi, 2. Naquee Akhtar @ Naqui Akhtar @ Nakki Akhtar, aged about 37 years, son of Jamil Akhtar, Both are residents of Village –Palmerganj, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S. –Lohardaga, District –Lohardaga. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Samim Khalifa, S/o Md. Israil Khalifa, Vill –Amla Toli, Somwar Bazar, P.O.+P.S. –Lohardaga, District –Lohardaga. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. 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 order dated 03.02.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in G.R. Case No. 89 of 2018 arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 21 of 2018 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 467/468/471/420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code and the office has been directed to issue summons to the appearing accused persons and non-bailable warrant of arrest against the absconding accused persons. ( 2025:JHHC:37531 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.525 of 2022 3. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the self-same prayer and earlier the petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2020 against the order dated 18.05.2020, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 21 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 89 of 2018 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 467/468/471/420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Co-ordinate Bench vide its order dated 29.01.2021 in Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2020 found that the order impugned before it has been passed without recording any material which is against the petitioners so as to proceed against them and quashed and set aside the said order dated 18.05.2020, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 21 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 89 of 2018 and remanded the matter to the court below for proceeding afresh and passing order in accordance with the provisions of law. Subsequent to the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has passed the order dated 03.02.2021 mentioning therein that the police after investigation of the case has submitted charge sheet alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 467/468/471/420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code inter-alia against the petitioners. From the perusal of the case diary, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga formed an opinion that the accused persons including the petitioners have cheated the informant by providing false and forged documents and after ( 2025:JHHC:37531 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.525 of 2022 forging the documents have cheated and dishonestly induced the informant to part with money and took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 467/468/471/420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case for the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga is made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that in Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2020, the petitioner raised the same ground that no case is made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety but the said contention of the petitioner did not find favour with the Co-ordinate Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench did not quash the entire proceeding rather remitted the matter as the order impugned before it, did not discuss the materials properly. The said order of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 29.01.2021, passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2020 has already attained finality as the said order has not been challenged by the petitioners in any superior court. Now once the contention of the petitioners that no case is ( 2025:JHHC:37531 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.525 of 2022 made out even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, did not find favour with the Co-ordinate Bench, which order has already attained finality, the same is not open to be agitated before another Co-ordinate Bench by filing another criminal miscellaneous petition. It is then submitted that the Magistrate taking cognizance on the basis of the Final Report submitted by the police is not required to discuss in detail the materials in the record. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioners agitated before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2020 that no offence is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety. However, the said contention of the petitioners did not find favour with the Co-ordinate Bench but as the order impugned before the Co-ordinate Bench in Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2020 was a non-speaking order and was absolutely cryptic one, hence the matter was remitted to the court concerned to pass a fresh order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga thereafter passed a fresh order. The undisputed fact remains that the order is a speaking order and on the basis of the charge sheet ( 2025:JHHC:37531 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.525 of 2022 submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above. 7. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539, para-23 of which reads as under:- “23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file.” (Emphasis supplied) ( 2025:JHHC:37531 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.525 of 2022 Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in case of taking cognizance of an offence based on a police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. 8. Under such circumstances, as this Court is of the considered view as there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga and the same is in accordance with directions passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2020 dated 29.01.2021. Hence, this Court do not find any merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 2nd December, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 18/12/2025