A cognizance order passed mechanically on a printed proforma without judicial application of mind is unsustainable.

The informant, Chandra Shekhar Ojha, alleged that on 10 April 2013 the petitioners, armed with weapons, entered his courtyard, assaulted him and his wife, caused injuries, issued threats and abused them, and snatched the wife’s mangalsutra and earrings.

The police registered Nautan P.S. Case No. 100 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 447, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. On 2 February 2016, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, took cognizance against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the cognizance order under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, contending that it had been passed mechanically on a printed proforma, without application of judicial mind.

Whether a Magistrate’s order taking cognizance on a police report is legally sustainable when it is passed mechanically on a printed proforma without demonstrating application of judicial mind?

Whether the cognizance order dated 2 February 2016 should be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration?

Under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint, a police report, information from any person other than a police officer, or upon the Magistrate’s own information or suspicion.

Relying on Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 2 SCC 654, the Court reiterated that cognizance is taken when the Magistrate applies judicial mind to the suspected commission of an offence and takes judicial notice of it.

Although a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed, elaborate or reasoned order at the stage of taking cognizance on a charge-sheet, the order must nevertheless reflect application of judicial mind and cannot be passed mechanically by filling blanks in a printed proforma or by affixing a ready-made seal.

The cognizance or summoning of an accused is a serious judicial act and the order should indicate satisfaction as to the offences prima facie disclosed by the materials on record.

The High Court accepted the petitioners’ limited challenge without examining the other merits of the case. It found that the impugned order dated 2 February 2016 was a typed, proforma-based order that did not disclose any consideration of the allegations, the police materials, or the specific offences allegedly made out against the petitioners.

While a detailed discussion was unnecessary, the complete absence of reasons or any indication of judicial satisfaction demonstrated that the Magistrate had not independently applied judicial mind as required under Section 190 CrPC and the principle stated in Darshan Singh Ram Kishan.

The mechanical nature of the order therefore rendered it inconsistent with settled judicial norms.

It accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to pass a fresh order, with reasons and in accordance with law, if the criminal proceeding was still pending.

The petition was allowed to that extent, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.