IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 405 of 2020 --- Sunil Kumar Verma S/o Ramesh Chandra Prasad, R/o Ranighat, PO Mahendru, PS Sultangunj, District Patna (Bihar) … … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI … … Opposite party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Vishal Kumar Trivedi & Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. party-CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Ms. Chandana Kumari & Kumar Swapnil, ACs --- 6/04.03.2025 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI for the respondent. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in R. C. Case No. 01(S)/2011- AHD-R whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been taken under Sections 120(B)/419/420/467/468/471 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has drawn the attention of the court to the impugned order dated 25.02.2019 while submitting that a perusal of the said order would not indicate application of mind on the part of the learned Special Judge, CBI. It has been submitted that the order primarily reveals that the blanks with respect to the cognizance has been filled up and in absence of there being any reason assigned thereto, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with R. C. Case No. 01(S)/2011-AHD-R deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed upon the case of “INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh” in S.L.P. No. 2345 of 2024, the case of “Lalankumar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 as -2- well as the case of “J. M. Laboratories and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another” reported in the 2025 SCC Online SC 208. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and while referring at the charge-sheet he has submitted that the specific finding has been recorded against the petitioner and therefore, in such circumstances, the impugned order of cognizance dated 25.02.2019 does not deserve any interference. The prosecution case reveals that during the year 2008 the named accused persons in conspiracy with other unknown persons had cheated Deoghar Branch of UCO Bank to the tune of Rs. 1,68,75,000/-. It has been alleged that a term loan of Rs. 1,68,75,000/- was sanctioned by the Zonal Office of UCO Bank, Ranchi on 08.03.2008 to M/s. Ganga Bricks, William Town, Deoghar for acquiring equipment necessary for executing civil work for the construction of a medical college building of M/s. Paritran Trust, Deoghar. It has also been alleged that two imposters were arranged as guarantors to impersonate as Sri Kishori Lal Sahu and Sri Kishore Kumar Sahu and forged identity proofs of the guarantors and other documents were submitted to the bank which led to the sanction of the loan amount on the collateral security of landed property in the joint names of Sri Kishori Lal Sahu and Sri Kishore Kumar Sahu. The petitioner was the Credit Manager of UCO Bank who has been implicated on the allegation that he was hand in glove with other accused persons in sanctioning the term loan of Rs. 1,68,75,000/-. The investigation was conducted by the CBI after which the charge-sheet was submitted pursuant to which cognizance was taken on 25.02.2019 which is the order impugned to the present application. Since the main focus of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be with respect to the cognizance order dated 25.02.2019 which according to him is a non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed and set aside, the law on the said issue has been taken note of which finds place in the case of “INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh” (supra), wherein it has been held as follows: -3- “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.” In the case of “Lalankumar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra” (supra), it has been held as follows: “38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which reads thus: “51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, -4- the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” Recently, in the case of “JM Laboratories and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another” (supra), while considering a similar issue, the following order was passed: “9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non-speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us 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 Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh” and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Krishna Lal Chawla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.” What would transpire from the aforesaid is that before issuance of summons by the concerned Magistrate, he is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient grounds exist for summoning the accused or not. Reverting back to the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad it clearly appears that the said order has been passed by way of mere formality, as there is a clear dearth of application of mind on the part of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad. In fact, the word ‘cognizance’ seems to have been filled-up in a blank which would further the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the non-application of mind thereupon on the part of the concerned court while passing the impugned order dated 25.02.2019. On consideration of the aforesaid facts therefore, the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in R. C. Case No. 01(S)/2011-AHD-R is quashed and set aside so far as the petitioner is concerned and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for a fresh consideration with respect to the charge-sheet which has been submitted against the petitioner and the order which is -5- to be passed should indicate the application of mind on the part of the concerned court. This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R Shekhar Cp 3