Magistrate cannot conduct mini-trial or evaluate evidence on merits at the stage of taking cognizance.

The State filed a criminal revision against an order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kannauj, which declined to take cognizance of a charge-sheet filed under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The case arose from allegations that the accused, Nawab Singh Yadav, and his accomplices threatened and harassed a medical witness (PW-11) to suborn her testimony in a separate POCSO/rape trial.

Following an investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet on 11.07.2025.

The CJM refused to take cognizance, citing irregularities in the remand process, lack of forensic knowledge by the police, and a perceived lack of evidence in the FIR and witness statements.

At the stage of taking cognizance under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Magistrate must only determine if a prima facie case exists and must not evaluate the merits of the evidence to predict conviction.

The court applied the principle from Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, which prohibits sifting through evidence at this stage.

The court relied on Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta regarding the limited scope of the Magistrate's inquiry at the cognizance stage.

The court relied on the three-judge bench decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, which mandates that when a Magistrate decides not to take cognizance on a police report, the informant must be given an opportunity to be heard.

The High Court found that the CJM’s 31-page order erroneously treated the cognizance stage as a trial. Instead of merely checking for a prima facie case, the CJM extensively analyzed the addition of charges, criticized the police’s "forensic knowledge," and questioned the timeline of witness statements.

The Court held that such an appreciation of evidence is "not the province of the court at that stage".

The High Court observed that the CJM terminated the proceedings without issuing notice to the informant, which is a mandatory requirement under Bhagwant Singh because the informant is prejudicially affected when a case is dropped.

The Court allowed the revision and set aside the CJM’s order dated 20.09.2025.

The matter was restored to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, with directions to pass fresh orders on the police report in light of the High Court's observations.