Magistrate must assign specific reasons when differing from police conclusion and summoning the non-chargesheeted accused.

The appellant challenged an order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Nalanda, which took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506/34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act.

The police had filed a charge-sheet exonerating the appellant (a police officer in Jharkhand), finding him "not sent up for trial" based on plea of alibi supported by mobile tower location data.

However, the trial court differed from the police report and took cognizance against him.

The appellant contended the FIR was a retaliatory, delayed counter-case to Deepnagar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023, involving an attempt on his brother’s life.

1. Whether the trial court can take cognizance against an accused not sent up for trial by the police without assigning specific reasons for differing from the police's investigative conclusion.

2. Whether the impugned order reflected a mechanical approach as opposed to a due application of judicial mind.

Section 14(A)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act regarding appeals.

The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that while a Magistrate/Special Judge has the power to differ from a police report (Final Form), such an order must demonstrate a "due application of judicial mind" and provide "reasoned" grounds for such disagreement, rather than a "mechanical approach".

The High Court observed that the appellant had been specifically exonerated by the police during the investigation.

It noted that the appellant's defense—including his status as a serving police officer in another state, the lack of medical examination at a government hospital by the informant, and the digital evidence (CDR/Tower location) suggesting his absence from the crime scene—was overlooked.

The court found that the trial court failed to provide any rationale or disclose reasons for rejecting the police's conclusion that the appellant was not involved.

The court determined that the failure to assign reasons for differing from the police report rendered the order a "mechanical" exercise of power lacking judicial scrutiny.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2024. The matter was remanded to the learned trial court with a direction to pass a fresh, reasoned order on the question of cognizance in accordance with the law.