Courts must not take criminal cognizance mechanically without convincing prima facie material.

The dispute concerned 1 Katha and 3 Dhurs of land in Madhuvan, Madhepura, claimed by the complainant’s family through earlier purchase, khatiyan records, and rent receipts.

The principal alleged occurrence took place on 31 January 2016, when the accused allegedly entered the complainant’s residential premises, assaulted the complainant and his son, demolished a straw house, caused damage of approximately ₹20,000, and committed theft of ₹15,000. The complainant thereafter filed a complaint when the police allegedly failed to take action.

After examining the complainant on oath and recording the statements of inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 468, 323, 385, 427, 379 and 504 of the IPC against the petitioner.

The Sessions Judge allowed the revision, set aside the Magistrate’s order, and directed the court below to hear the complainant afresh and pass a fresh order.

Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 468, 323, 385, 427, 379 and 504 IPC and directing a fresh consideration of the complaint?

Whether the Magistrate had taken cognizance mechanically, particularly in respect of the alleged theft, mischief, and forgery, without sufficient supporting material?

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the revisional order?

The Court considered the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, for the principle that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind before taking cognizance and should not mechanically initiate criminal proceedings.

The High Court found no ground to interfere with the Sessions Judge’s order. The revisional court had examined the complaint record and noted that the three inquiry witnesses had not stated anything supporting the allegations of theft or mischief, although cognizance had nevertheless been taken under Sections 379 and 427 IPC.

It also noted that the allegation concerning the forged sale deed was unsupported by any declaration from a competent court that the deed was forged or fabricated, and that no proceeding to set aside the deed had been initiated by the complainant.

Applying the principle that cognizance cannot be taken mechanically and that an accused should not be subjected to criminal trial without convincing reasons, as stated in Pradeep S. Wodeyar, the High Court held that the revisional intervention did not warrant exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the order setting aside the Magistrate’s cognizance order and directing the trial court to hear the complainant afresh remained operative. The trial court records, if any, were directed to be returned to the concerned court.