Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report is not required to record reasons for issuing process.

The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings and an order taking cognizance dated 12.11.2025 in Barwadda P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021.

Although the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against him four years later for offences under Sections 25(1-B)a, 25(6), 26, and 35 of the Arms Act based on material collected during the investigation.

The petitioner argued his name surfaced solely through an inadmissible confessional statement of a co-accused and that the Magistrate took cognizance in a mechanical manner without recording specific satisfaction regarding prima facie evidence.

1. Whether a Magistrate is required to record detailed reasons or discuss the evidentiary value of materials when taking cognizance based on a police report.

2. Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed at the stage of cognizance on the ground that the evidence (such as a co-accused's confession) is currently inadmissible or the prosecution is malicious.

3. Whether a Magistrate has the power to add or subtract penal sections at the time of taking cognizance upon a police report.

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) regarding inherent powers to quash proceedings.

State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, holding that a Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing process when taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b).

State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, wherein it was noted that a Magistrate cannot add or subtract sections at the cognizance stage; such adjustments occur during framing of charges.

CBI v. Aryan Singh, holding that the question of whether a proceeding is malicious is a matter for trial, not for the stage of cognizance.

Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which allows the consideration of a proved confession against a co-accused in a joint trial.

The High Court observed that the investigating officer had duly filled all required columns in the supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner.

The court reasoned that since cognizance had already been taken in the case in 2021, the impugned order in 2025 was merely the result of a supplementary charge sheet impleading additional persons.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding the inadmissibility of the co-accused's confession at this stage, noting that Section 24 of the BSA allows such confessions to be considered during trial, and the Magistrate need not sift through evidentiary value at the summons stage.

Following H.N. Rishbud v. State, the Court held that even if there were irregularities in the investigation, they do not vitiate cognizance unless a miscarriage of justice is shown.

The Court emphasized that the petitioner's concerns regarding the lack of evidence or specific penal sections are more appropriately addressed at the stage of framing charges rather than through quashing.

The final holding stated that there was no illegality in the impugned order warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed.