IN HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 392 of 2020 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad 2. Sourendra Dey Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Anr Opp. Party(s) Coram: Hon ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen For Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate For UOI : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate. 4/05.03.2020 Heard parties. In this application, petitioner prays for quashing order dated 07.03.2018, by which cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 276 B & 278 B of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been taken and summon has been issued to petitioners for appearance. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner no. 1 is Company and petitioner no. 2 is official of company. He submits that cognizance order is absolutely bad and cryptic and it does not suggest application of mind. He submits that requirement of Section 204 Cr.P.C. has not been dealt with in impugned order. He further submits that court should have sufficiently satisfied itself before taking cognizance for offence as alleged, which has not been reflected in order impugned, which makes order defective. After going through record, I find that Court below has taken cognizance of offence under Section 276 B & 278B of IT Act and issued summon to them. What are materials to proceed against petitioner no. 2 has not been mentioned in impugned order. What is his role in entire occurrence has also not been mentioned in impugned order. Further, what are offence which attracts Section 276 (B) of I.T. Act has also not been whispered in impugned order. In most mechanical way, impugned order has been passed. This Court in case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors.- versus- State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 , has passed detailed order discussing provisions -2- and requirement of order under Section 190 & 204 Cr.P.C. impugned order is not in consonance with aforesaid order. In view of aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 07.03.2018 is not in consonance with legal provisions as laid down. Thus, this application stands allowed. impugned order dated 07.03.2018 is, hereby, set aside. matter is remitted to court below to pass fresh order in accordance with provisions of law. This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed (Ananda Sen, J) Mukund/-cp.3 Bharat Coking Coal Limited / Sourendra Dey v. Union of India & Anr