The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and distinct allegations, procedural and substantive fairness, and the need for sufficient material prompting the judicial mind to find a prima facie case.

ORDER :

A.1 to A.9 in C.C.No.786 of 2019 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them.

2. Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant.

3. Despite notice being served, none entered appearance for respondent No.2.

4. Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 - State submitted arguments.

5. Point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether institution and continuation of C.C.No.786 of 2019 as against these petitioners is against the principles contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure and abuse of process of Court?”

POINT:

6. In C.C.No.786 of 2019 the offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Smt. N.Rani lodged written information on 28.03.2019 and the same was registered as Crime No.80 of 2019 of Vissannapet Police Station. After due investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet before learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru. On 24.08.2019 learned Magistrate took cognizance for the above referred offences and ordered process as against A.1 to A.9. It is then those accused preferred this Criminal Petition.

7. In legal parlance cognizance is taking judicial notice by the Court of law on a cause presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause judicially. Every Judicial Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has to satisfy himself about the satisfactory grounds to proceed with the case and at that stage the consideration should not be whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. However, there shall be sufficient material prompting the judicial mind to find a prima facie case so as to embark upon further prosecution of the case in accordance with law. In such circumstances, while it is not required to give elaborate reasons for taking cognizance but the Judicial Magistrate must in his order of taking cognizance should indicate the fact that to the facts on record he had applied his mind and he had taken a decision consciously. The legal process must maintain procedural fairness as well as substantive fairness vide Rajendra Rajoriya v. Jagat Narain Thapak : 2018 CRI.L.J. 1832 SC. Application of judicial mind with a view to take further action in prosecution is what cognizance is, vide Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V.Narayana Reddy : AIR 1976 SC 1672.

8. An investigative outcome in the form of a charge sheet without making any reference to the statements of witnesses examined except making an allegation that there is a prima facie case made out as against accused would not justify a Court to take cognizance vide Mohammad Ataullah v. Ram Saran Mahto : (1981) 2 SCC 266.

9. The above principles of law have eminent application in the case at hand. F.I.R. made allegations as against A.1 to A.9. The charge sheet in its cause title printed the names of A.1 to A.9. In the cause title itself the investigating officer mentioned that A.3, A.5, A.6, A.7 and A.8 are not charged. In the last paragraph of the charge sheet he has mentioned the names of all these accused with their address particulars and stated that during his investigation he found that these accused did not commit any of the alleged offences and they were not even physically present at the time of the alleged crime incident and they are living at different places far away from the scene of offence and no case was made out and the versions of the witnesses did not indicate much against them. Mentioning these details he stated that he is not charging them. Thus, according to the State it intended to continue prosecution only as against A.1, A.2, A.4 and