Special (POCSO) case was set aside as no reason was assigned for the cognizance order – Jharkhand high court
Special (POCSO) case was set aside as no reason was assigned for the cognizance order – Jharkhand high court A petition demanding the quashing of entire criminal proceedings and order taking cognizance in Special (POCSO) Case No.22 of 2020 was disposed of because the court found the reason for taking cognizance not reliable the judgment was given by a single bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI in the case of Ram Nandan Paswan versus The state of Jharkhand (Cr.M.P.No.2356 of 2021) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a petitioner is an old man of about 67 years and the entire allegation against the accused is false and these allegations are made because the wife of the petitioner has lodged an FIR being SC/ST Birsa Nagar P.S.Case  No.11/2019 against the informant and other co-accused persons and in against of it the false case has been made. The counsel further submits that the   I.O  investigated and submitted the final form showing a lack of evidence against the accused and despite this investigation, the learned court has granted cognizance against the accused and there is no strong reason given on differing and it is a  well-settled rule of law that no detailed order is required to be made for passing any order or for summoning the accused and there is no probable doubt that the concerned court should differ and it is within the jurisdiction of the court but to take cognizance or for that reason is required to be disclosed in the order. which has not been done in the case in hand reference has been made to the case of “Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another”, (2012) 11 SCC 465. The learned court finds that the court has differed from the charge sheet and taken cognizance against a settled rule of law and the reason has not been assigned as to why cognizance is required to be taken against the accused and with this the court decides that corresponding to Sidhgora P.S. Case No.169 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), is set aside. Click here to read the judgment 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI Ram Nandan Paswan @ Raj Nath Paswan aged about 67 years son of late Jitan Paswan resident of Patna Line Bajrang Chowk P.O. Sidhgora and PS Sidhgora Town Jamshedpur District East SinghbhumCase No.22 of 2020 corresponding to Sidhgora P.S. Case No.169 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judgeat Jamshedpur. The case was lodged stating therein that the prosecution as per the FIR in brief is that the victim aged about five years is daughter of informant. The informant was doing work of maid in the house of the accused Ram Nath Paswan. It is alleged that the accused used to do obscene act with minor victim daughter. It is alleged that when the victim feel pain in her private part then the informant asked to her daughter who disclosed that when informant used to work the accused took her victim daughter to show TV and he did obscene act with her daughter. It is alleged that the accused person did such act several times. When she asked then her daughter told that Dadu did the alleged act with her on pretext of showing T.V. Mr. Indrajit Sinha the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 67 years and the entire allegation against the petitioner is false. He submits that the wife of the petitioner had also lodged FIR being SC ST Birsa Nagar P.S.Case No.11 2019 against the informant and other co accused persons. He submits that after investigation the I.O submitted final form showing lack of evidence against the petitioner and inspite of that the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. He submits that there is no reason assigned on differing. It is well settled that no detailed order is required to be passed for passing any order for summoning the accused but in the case where final form has been submitted in favour of the accused and the Magistrate is intending to proceed on a complaint petition he is required to make reasons of differing with the final form which has not been done in the case. There is no doubt that the concerned court should differ and it is within its jurisdiction of the court but to take cognizance for that reason is required to be disclosed in the order which has not been done in the case in hand. A reference may be made to the case of “Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another” 11 SCC 465. Paragraph no.19 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “19. Since CBI wanted the matter to be closed it was appropriate though not imperative for the Magistrate to record reasons for differing with the prayer made in the closure report. After all CBI would have surely wished to know how it went wrong. But then there are two other important factors in this case which further necessitated the recording of reasons. Firstly the complainant himself was being summoned as an accused. Such an action suggests that the complainant was Magistrate actually reversed the position of the adversaries. The party which was originally pointing the finger is now sought to be pointed at. Certainly the complainant would want to know why.” the accused. The action taken by The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case in hand the learned court has differed with the charge sheet and taken cognizance. In the cognizance order the reason has not been assigned as to why cognizance is required to be taken against the petitioner. In view of settled law the impugned order dated 04.06.2020 passed in connection with SpecialCase No.220 corresponding to Sidhgora P.S. Case No.169 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge at Jamshedpur is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to pass fresh order in light of the settled proposition of law in this regard. SI Disposed of. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi J) 