Cognizance cannot stand on vague, unsupported allegations of assault and snatching made as an afterthought.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 4 June 2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, taking cognizance against them under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1532(C) of 2015.

The complainant alleged assault and snatching of articles by the petitioners.

The petitioners contended that the complainant had previously filed Complaint Case No. 689(C) of 2015 concerning the same occurrence, which was dismissed for default on 24 August 2015, and that the subsequent complaint was an afterthought.

They further relied on Khirimore P.S. Case No. 06 of 2015, lodged by petitioner no. 1 on the date of occurrence, and injury reports concerning petitioner nos. 1 and 3, to submit that their side had suffered injuries.

The State opposed the application, submitting that the complainant’s solemn affirmation and the statements of two witnesses disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 323 and 379 IPC.

Whether the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance under Sections 323 and 379 IPC was sustainable when the complaint and supporting statements allegedly contained only vague assertions of assault and snatching, without medical evidence or particulars of the allegedly stolen articles.

Whether the subsequent complaint concerning the same occurrence, filed after the earlier complaint had been dismissed for default, could justify initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

The Court applied Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, which respectively concern voluntarily causing hurt and theft.

At the cognizance stage, the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the complaint, the complainant’s solemn affirmation, and the supporting witness statements to determine whether the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie disclosed.

Mere bald, vague, and unsubstantiated allegations cannot ordinarily justify criminal proceedings where the essential factual particulars of hurt or theft are absent.

The Court also considered the legal significance of filing a subsequent complaint concerning the same occurrence after an earlier complaint had been dismissed for default.

The Court found that the complainant’s solemn affirmation and the statements of the two witnesses contained only general allegations of assault and snatching, without material showing that the complainant had actually sustained injuries or specifying the nature of the jewellery or other article allegedly taken.

The absence of medical evidence, coupled with the lack of particulars regarding the alleged theft, meant that the foundational ingredients of Sections 323 and 379 IPC were not adequately disclosed.

The Court also treated the earlier complaint concerning the same occurrence, its dismissal for default, and the subsequent filing of the present complaint as relevant circumstances indicating that the prosecution was an afterthought.

The contemporaneous FIR lodged by petitioner no. 1 and the injury reports relating to petitioner nos. 1 and 3 supported the petitioners’ contention that the complaint had been filed to counter or neutralise their criminal case.

Accordingly, the cognizance order reflected improper initiation of proceedings on vague allegations.

It held that the allegations and supporting statements did not make out a sufficient prima facie case under Sections 323 or 379 IPC and that the proceedings appeared to have been initiated on vague, afterthought allegations.