Magistrate must record reasons when differing from police conclusion to take cognizance against a non-sent-up accused.

The appellant was named in an FIR (Sour Bazar P.S. Case No. 450/2020) regarding the murder of the informant’s husband, allegedly over a land dispute.

Following an investigation, the police found no substantive evidence linking the appellant to the crime—noting a different version of events in the confessional statement of another accused— and consequently did not nominate the appellant for trial in the final report.

However, via an order dated 21.09.2021, the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharsa, differed from the police conclusion and took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 302, 201, 120(B), 504, 506/34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant.

The appellant challenged this cognizance order on the ground that it was cryptic and lacked judicial reasoning.

1. Whether a cognizance-taking court is required to record specific reasons when differing from a police report that finds an accused person innocent.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 21.09.2021 was passed with proper judicial application of mind or was mechanical in nature.

The court applied Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act regarding appeals against orders.

While a Magistrate/Special Judge has the power to differ from a police "final form" (closure report), the court is legally obligated to record reasons, however brief, for such disagreement.

Mahanth Ram Mohan Das vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2026 SCC OnLine Pat 1993) and Pappu Kumar Chauhan @ Shiv Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar (Cr. APP(SJ) No. 2044 of 2025).

The High Court observed that the trial court took cognizance against the appellant despite the police not sending him up for trial.

The Court found that the impugned order failed to provide any rationale for disregarding the police’s conclusion of innocence or for bypassing the materials in the case diary—such as the confessional statement of Nirbudh Sada—which did not implicate the appellant.

It was determined that simply stating that the case diary and charge sheets were "taken into consideration" does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned judicial order when the court chooses to proceed against a person found innocent by investigators.

Consequently, the High Court characterized the trial court’s approach as "mechanical" and a "non-judicial approach," rendering the order legally unsustainable.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2021 specifically as it pertained to the appellant. The matter was remanded to the trial court with a direction to pass a fresh, reasoned order on the point of cognizance regarding the appellant, in accordance with the law and without being prejudiced by the observations of the High Court.