Satyendra Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 27-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

By way of present application, a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 384 of 2020, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 341, 500, 504, 506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The short facts emerging out of the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 is that the petitioner, in collusion with other accused person, has voluntarily caused hurt, intentionally insulted publicly and intimidated the complainant with criminal intent and they also put the complainant in fear of accusation by gross abuse of their administrative powers and connections.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the present case arises out of a complaint which is totally motivated and malacious as the contents thereof would indicate that it relates to initially asking some details of one of the teachers of the school, who happened to be the wife of accused no.1 and subsequently allegations have been made against accused no.1 and accused no.2 i.e., this petitioner, who is the batch-mate of accused no.1, of threatening the informant in several manners by misusing and abusing his official powers.

Besides narrating the facts of the case, the main thrust of argument made by the petitioner is that the impugned order taking cognizance dated 12.01.2021 is in the typed performa format which is clearly indicative of non-application of judicial mind. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.37056 of 2019, wherein reliance has been placed on another judgment of this Court passed in the case of Sudhir Kumar Sinha & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2017 (4) PLJR 1028. The said judgment clearly indicates that the order taking cognizance passed by filling up the blanks in printed format cannot be sustained as it does not reflect the application of judicial mind, rather is indicative of the fact that it has been passed in totally mechanical manner. Besides the said ground, the learned counsel has also cursorily raised the issue of sanction, as the petitioner happens to be a government servant and was discharging his official duty. But his argument is more or less confined to the illegality of the impugned order being in typed format with blanks filled, indicating non-application of judicial mind.

Per contra, learned APP for the State has opposed the present application by pointing out that offence is made out as against the present petitioner according to allegations made in the complaint and also from the solemn affirmation of the complainant and the deposition of the enquiry witnesses. Further, at the stage of cognizance, it is only prima facie case which needs to be seen and no inquiry on the merits of the allegations is required to be made. Moreover, the order issuing summons against the petitioner considering all materials, has not been challenged.

I have heard the rival contentions on behalf of the petitioner and the State and I have also gone through the entire materials placed on record, including the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner indicating the present stage of the case, wherein in paragraph-3, it has been admitted that the case is on trial and witnesses are being examined and that the next date of hearing is scheduled on 30.07.2026. The certified copy of the proceedings of the case has also been enclosed to the supplementary affidavit indicating the fact that the substance of accusation was explained on 20.12.2025 itself, whereafter the evidence of one of the witnesses was recorded on 04.11.2025 and he was finally discharged on 21.04.2026.

It is true that the order taking cognizance is on a typed performa format, but as a matter of fact the order issuing summons against the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure-P/5, which is a detailed order passed on the basis of the complaint, the S.A. of the complainant, the statement of the enquiry witnesses and as also a report dated 22.11.2023 submitted by the S.H.O., wherein the allegations have been found true and the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant. There is clear cut finding that the report of the concerned Police Station indicates that the act of the accused persons was not done during discharge of their official duty and upon prima facie case being made out against both the accused persons, including the present petitioner, named in the complaint petition, the summons were issued.

This Court has considered all the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances and gathered that while the order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-P/5), issuing summons against the petitioner is a well reasoned and speaking order, taking into consideration all the materials on record, which was never subjected to challenge, the order being assailed here is dated 12.01.2021, which was only passed upon the complaint along with the documents attached and till that date even the S.A. of the complainant was not recorded.

It is a fact that orders of such nature being in typed performa is deprecated but considering the fact that the subsequent order issuing summons is a reasoned order based on materials on record, never put to challenge, some technical defect in the earlier order may not result in the failure of the entire prosecution, moreso, at a stage when the trial has commenced and witnesses are being examined.

This Court thus does not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order or the trial at this stage, as such, the present application, praying for quashing the order taking cognizance and other consequential proceedings, stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all his arguments at appropriate stage of the trial.

With the aforesaid observations, the present application stands disposed of.