JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 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 a prayer to quash and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum in connection with Galudih P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.356 of 2017 and a further prayer has also been made to quash the order taking cognizance dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila in the said case. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the accused person of Galudih P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 inter alia the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was assisting in concealment of stolen property. Police after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 414 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum took cognizance of the said offences in respect of which the charge sheet was submitted. The co- accused person namely Ram Avtar Rajgariya @ Ram Avtar Rajgarhia filed Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 challenging the said order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2019 passed in the said Cr.M.P. found that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum while issuing summons has not whispered as to what are the materials to proceed against the petitioner, thus, it was observed that there is no application of judicial mind in passing the order impugned; as the court has not formed opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed and as the order impugned does not reflect any application of judicial mind, reliying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Cr. Appeal No.1843 of 2019 dated 05.12.2019 and set aside the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, but it was observed that the Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. Appeal No.1843 of 2019 dated 05.12.2019 and set aside the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, but it was observed that the Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. Another co-accused namely Vishal Kumar Shah @ Vishal Shah also filed Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022 with the self-same prayer and vide order dated 07.09.2022 another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner of that Cr.M.P. for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 414 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequent upon the same when in this Cr.M.P., it was submitted by the petitioner that the learned ACJM, Ghatsila has not passed any order, though in both the orders passed in the said two criminal miscellaneous petitions, the Co-ordinate Benches given liberty to the learned ACJM, Ghatsila to proceed further in accordance with law; bypassing express order in this criminal miscellaneous petition, report was called for from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum as to why a fresh reasoned and speaking order in respect of the cognizance has not been passed. Consequent upon receipt of such orders, the learned ACJM, Ghatsila has passed a reasoned order and has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 414 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and one Rama Shankar Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 03.07.2024 is the second cognizance in respect of the petitioner which is not sustainable in law. It is next submitted that in the impugned order, it has not been mentioned by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila as to though charge sheet has been submitted against 4 persons, why it has mentioned that cognizance of the offence is taken against only two of the persons and why it did not find it proper to proceed against the rest two persons against whom charge sheet has also been submitted. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that cognizance of the offences is taken by a court and cognizance is not taken against the accused persons, so the consequences of the orders passed by the co-ordinate benches dated 10.12.2019 in Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 and order dated 07.09.2022 in Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022 is that the cognizance of the offence taken by the order dated 20.12.2018 stands set aside because of the same being not a reasoned order, but since both the co-ordinate benches have given the liberty to the learned Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law; the only option open for the learned ACJM, Ghatsila was to pass fresh cognizance order, so no illegality has been committed by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila in passing the impugned order. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that both the co-ordinate benches have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahilpal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Another dated 05.12.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal No.1843 of 2019. 8. True it is that in the said case of Mahilpal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Another dated 05.12.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal No.1843 of 2019, in para-23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have mentioned that merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not sub-serve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order, but such observation was made not in respect of an order passed by a Magistrate in respect of the cognizance of the offences on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police rather the same was observed in respect of an order of the Single Judge of the High Court passed in a bail order; without a sound exercise of judicial discipline for an order granting or rejecting bail, to record the reasons which have waived with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power. 9. 9. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of issuing summons to the accused based on a police report, Magistrate is not required to record any reason, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 paragraph-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) 10. 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) 10. It is further pertinent to mention here that the interference with the police report at the stage of taking cognizance by the Magistrate is limited as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 , paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- “15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically laid down the law that if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the F.I.R. on which investigation has been conducted, the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet, cannot fill up the lacunae and the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance; as the same would be permissible for the trial court only at the time of framing the charge. 11. Be that as it may since it is a settled principle of law that the cognizance of the offence is taken and cognizance is not taken against the accused persons, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the consequences of the orders dated 10.12.2019 in Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 and order dated 07.09.2022 in Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022, the cognizance of the offences taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum has been set aside. 12. The consequence of the observation made in both the orders that the Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law means the Magistrate must have passed a fresh order in respect of the cognizance has the order of cognizance watch not quashed on merits but the same was quashed because of lack of reasoning. There was no bar for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences nor was any direction given not to pass summoning orders against two petitioners of the said Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 and Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022, if the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate found sufficient material for the same. There was no bar for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences nor was any direction given not to pass summoning orders against two petitioners of the said Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 and Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022, if the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate found sufficient material for the same. Therefore, in case the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate found in any justifiable reason not to pass any summoning order against two of the accused persons out of the four accused persons against whom charges sheet was submitted than in that case, it must mention the reasons as to why it is not passing the summoning order against two out of the four accused persons against whom charges sheet has been submitted. After going through the impugned order, this court finds that though the charge sheet was submitted against four accused persons but in the order dated 03.07.2024 there is no whisper by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila passed in G.R. Case No.356 of 2017 as to why it felt it not proper to proceed against other two accused persons of the case being the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.2853 of 2019 and Cr.M.P. No.2188 of 2022 against whom charge sheet was also submitted. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila in connection with Galudih P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.356 of 2017 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 14. The learned ACJM, Ghatsila is directed to pass a fresh order in respect of the charge sheet submitted by the police; in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by this order. 15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent.