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

An application submitted by Yadunandan Paswan, Assistant Godown Manager, State Food Corporation, Kadwa, led to registration of Kadwa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2013 on 20 April 2013 against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Following investigation, the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Katihar, passed an order dated 19 October 2016 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 IPC.

The petitioner challenged the cognizance order under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, principally contending that it was issued on a printed proforma by merely filling in blanks, without application of judicial mind.

The private opposite party did not appear despite service of notice.

1. Whether an order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 IPC, passed mechanically on a printed proforma without demonstrating application of judicial mind, is legally sustainable

2. Whether the impugned cognizance order was required to be quashed and the trial court directed to reconsider the matter by passing a fresh order in accordance with law

Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint, a police report, or information from another person 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 held that cognizance is taken when the Magistrate applies judicial mind to the alleged commission of an offence and takes judicial notice of it; no formal act or detailed reasoning is necessarily required.

However, the absence of a requirement to give a detailed order does not permit cognizance orders to be passed mechanically, by filling blanks in a printed proforma or by affixing a ready-made order or seal. A cognizance or summoning order must reflect application of judicial mind and satisfaction that the materials disclose the offences prima facie.

The impugned order was found to be a typed or printed proforma order containing no reasons and no indication that the Magistrate had examined the allegations or the materials in the police report to determine which offences were prima facie made out against the petitioner.

Although the Magistrate was not required to provide a detailed evaluation of the evidence at the cognizance stage, the order had to demonstrate a judicial consideration of the alleged offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 IPC. Its mechanical form therefore violated the requirement of application of judicial mind under Section 190 CrPC and the principle stated in Darshan Singh Ram Kishan.

The order was quashed and set aside. The learned trial court was directed to pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law, if the matter was still pending before it.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the trial court along with the record, if any.