A reasoned cognizance order based on inquiry materials warrants no interference under Section 482.

The petitioner, the complainant, alleged that on 29 May 2015 the accused persons assaulted and abused her, forcibly disrobed her, and took ornaments and clothes from her home; she also alleged that poison had been put in her father’s buffalo’s feed.

After police investigation resulted in a final form stating that the case was not true, the protest petition was treated as a complaint. Following examination of the complainant and enquiry witnesses, the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 IPC against only Geeta Devi and Shivajee Mahto.

The petitioner invoked Section 482 CrPC, contending that material supported cognizance against all accused persons.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance against only two accused, and not the remaining accused or the other alleged offences, warranted interference under Section 482 CrPC.

2. Whether the petitioner could raise her remaining objections at an appropriate stage of the trial.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to challenge the Magistrate’s cognizance order.

The Magistrate had conducted an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC and considered the complaint, the complainant’s statement on oath, the enquiry witnesses’ evidence and the injury report before deciding whether to proceed.

The judgment cites no precedent or further legal test; it rests on the finding that the Magistrate’s order was reasoned and that there was no occasion to interfere at that stage.

The High Court reviewed the impugned order and the material considered by the Magistrate.

It concluded that the Magistrate had assessed the complainant’s sworn statement and the enquiry evidence before finding sufficient material to proceed against Geeta Devi and Shivajee Mahto for the specified IPC offences.

On that basis, the Court declined to interfere with the order under Section 482 CrPC, while leaving the petitioner free to raise her other issues at an appropriate stage of the trial.

It disposed of the petition and granted the petitioner liberty to raise her remaining issues at the appropriate stage during trial.