IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25217 of 2007 RAM NARAYAN TIWARI, son of late Janardan Tiwary, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Branch Office, Coffee House Plaza Municipal Chowk, P.S. Chapra, District Saran … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajesh Kunar Singh, son of Binda Singh, resident of Salimapur, P.S. Marhowrah, District Saran … Opp.Parties. ----------- 5. 4.2.2010 Heard Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner, an official of United India Insurance Company, is aggrieved by the order taking cognizance in Marhowrah P. S. Case No. 156/2006 for offence under Section 420, 406, 408, 341, 323/34 I.P.C.. He has taken a plea that as a matter of fact in the entire case diary not a word has been said as with regard to the role of United India Insurance Company much less about the petitioner in the capacity of its official or even in his personal capacity. This Court would find that as a matter of fact almost same conclusion was arrived by the learned Magistrate so far it related to the petitioner, inasmuch as it has been recorded therein that it was tragic on the part of the police not to even care to find out the name of the Manager of United India Insurance Company. Such observation, 2 therefore, of the Court was definitely against the lapses on the part of the police investigation but then if he differed with the police investigation he was required to indicate at least some material on the basis of which he had proceeded to take cognizance while issuing summons against the petitioner. This Court, however, would find that the learned Magistrate has not at all applied himself on this aspect and the impugned order is a non-speaking order which cannot be sustained in law. That being so, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate to find out that as to whether there is any material against the petitioner in the case diary on the basis of which such difference of opinion can be recorded for the purposes of taking cognizance and issuing summons against the petitioner. The application therefore, the extent indicated above, is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/