Summoning a Column 12 suspect without recorded reasons is impermissible and requires fresh judicial consideration.

The petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Talwar, father-in-law of respondent no. 2, was named as accused no. 2 in FIR No. 515/2025, registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet but did not chargesheet the petitioner or his son, Mr. Anuj Talwar; their names were placed in Column No. 12 as “suspects” because no incriminating material was found against them.

Despite this, the Trial Court, by order dated 20 May 2026, took cognizance of the alleged offences and summoned all four family members, including the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the order as mechanical, non-speaking, and unsupported by reasons, particularly because no chargesheet had been filed against him.

Whether the Trial Court acted illegally or mechanically in taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioner and summoning him despite his having been placed in Column No. 12 of the chargesheet and not being chargesheeted by the Investigating Officer?

Whether the cognizance order dated 20 May 2026, insofar as it concerned the petitioner, was liable to be set aside for want of recorded reasons and application of judicial mind?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied the principle that a Magistrate taking cognizance and summoning a person who has not been chargesheeted must independently consider the material on record and record reasons demonstrating application of judicial mind, particularly where the Investigating Officer has placed that person in Column No. 12 as a suspect.

A mechanical or unreasoned summoning order is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner had not been chargesheeted, and the Investigating Officer had expressly placed his name in Column No. 12 after finding no incriminating material against him.

Nevertheless, the Trial Court summoned him without stating any reasons in either the order dated 20 May 2026 or the subsequent summons dated 22 May 2026.

The High Court held that, in these circumstances, the Trial Court had acted mechanically and without demonstrating application of judicial mind.

The petitioner was also found to be identically situated to his son, whose challenge to the same order had earlier succeeded.

Since the cognizance order did not disclose why the petitioner was being summoned despite his non-inclusion in the chargesheet, the order could not stand insofar as it related to him.

The Trial Court was directed to pass a fresh order after considering the material on record and to record reasons if it proposed to take cognizance against the petitioner, who had been placed in Column No. 12 of the chargesheet.

The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 28 October 2026.

The High Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the allegations or the investigation material, and that all contentions remained open.