Cognizance orders passed mechanically on printed proformas without judicial application of mind are unsustainable.

On 21 December 2016 at approximately 10:45 p.m., the petitioners allegedly set fire to the residential house of Opposite Party No. 2, causing clothes, bedding, utensils and crops to be destroyed, and allegedly dismantled the informant’s pucca house. The informant claimed that he narrowly escaped and that villagers witnessed the occurrence.

In Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 132 of 2016, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, passed an order dated 13 June 2018 taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 149, 436, 307 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners challenged the cognizance order principally on the ground that it was issued mechanically on a printed proforma, without application of judicial mind.

Whether a Magistrate’s order taking cognizance on a police report must demonstrate application of judicial mind, even though a detailed, reasoned order is not ordinarily required at that stage.

Whether an order of cognizance passed mechanically by filling blanks in a printed proforma, without indicating the offences prima facie disclosed, is legally sustainable.

Whether the impugned cognizance order dated 13 June 2018 was liable to be quashed and remitted for fresh consideration.

Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 authorises a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint, a police report, information from a person other than a police officer, or upon the Magistrate’s own information or suspicion.

Taking cognizance occurs when the Magistrate applies judicial mind to the alleged commission of an offence and takes judicial notice of it; it does not require any prescribed formal act.

Relying on Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra , (1971) 2 SCC 654, the Court held that although a detailed or elaborate order is not necessary at the cognizance stage, the order must nevertheless reflect judicial application of mind.

A cognizance order cannot validly be passed mechanically by using a printed proforma, filling blanks, or affixing a ready-made seal; it must indicate that the Magistrate considered the facts and the offences prima facie disclosed.

The High Court confined its consideration to the manner in which cognizance had been taken, without examining the petitioners’ other merits-based objections.

Although the allegations concerned serious offences under Sections 147, 149, 436, 307 and 427/34 IPC, the impugned order did not demonstrate that the Magistrate had independently considered the allegations or satisfied himself as to which offences were prima facie made out.

The Court distinguished between the absence of a requirement to provide detailed reasons and the impermissibility of passing a wholly mechanical order.

Since the order appeared to have been prepared on a typed proforma by filling in blanks, it failed to meet the minimum requirement of judicial application of mind and was contrary to settled judicial norms.

The learned trial court was directed to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law and by supplying reasons, if the criminal proceeding was still pending.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the trial court, which was further instructed to proceed expeditiously since the occurrence dated back to 2016.