A cognizance order must identify the offence and demonstrate judicial application of mind.

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the petitioner had received ₹46,20,000 between August 2020 and June 2021 for supplying spices and other goods but failed to deliver them.

She further alleged that documents sent by the petitioner were fake.

The Magistrate recorded her sworn statement and, by order dated 28 June 2023, stated that cognizance of “the offence” was taken, without identifying the offence.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the Magistrate’s cognizance order, which did not identify the offence for which cognizance was taken, was legally sustainable.

Whether the proceedings could continue where the complaint or affidavit did not state that the respondent had first approached the police or higher police officers, as discussed in Priyanka Srivastava.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of court.

Section 200 CrPC provides for a Magistrate to take cognizance of a complaint and examine the complainant and witnesses on oath.

The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 475 and 471 IPC.

The Court referred to Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, concerning compliance with the prescribed safeguards, including the requirement that an applicant demonstrate prior recourse to the police before seeking the relevant Magistrate’s intervention.

The cognizance order recorded the allegation and the complainant’s sworn statement, but did not specify which offence was being taken cognizance of.

The Court held that the order therefore showed a failure to apply judicial mind and rendered continuation of the proceedings an abuse of process.

It also found that neither the complaint nor the affidavit stated that the respondent had approached the jurisdictional police or higher officers before filing the complaint, and concluded that the Priyanka Srivastava guidelines had not been strictly complied with.

It reserved liberty for the respondent to approach the court by filing a private complaint, if required.