IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal intimidation – Order taking cognizance of offence should be a speaking order, containing materials justifying order taking cognizance.

JUDGMENT (ORDER)

The accused in C.C No. 231 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial First Class Magisatrate Court, Thriuvananthapuram, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The above case is based on a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in the form of a protest complaint against Annexure A1 refer report filed by police in Crime No. 1162 of 2014 of the Medical College Police Station.

2. The main greivience raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has passed a cryptic order taking cognizance of the offences without even referring to Annexure A1 refer report. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside Annexure A4 order of the learned Magistrate dated 27.02.2020, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 506(i) IPC against the petitoner.

Though service was complete, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant did not turn up.

3. From Annexure A4 proceedings of the learned Magistrate, it is revealed that the learned Magistrate has recorded the statements of the complainant and a witness and also directed the SHO, Medical College Police Station to produce the CD relating to Annexure A1 refer report. However, on 27.02.2020, while taking cognizance of the offence under Section 506(1) IPC, the only order seen to have been passed by the learned Magistrate is as follows :

“The complaint is taken on file as C.C No. 231 of 2020 under Section 506(1) IPC. Issue summons to the complainant. Take steps. Return of summons. 02.05.2020.”

4. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the order dated 27.02.2020 referred above, while taking cognizance of the offence under Section 506(1) IPC against the petitioner, the reasons for taking cognizance of the offence and the materials relied upon by the learned Magistrate were not disclosed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran [2009 (1) KLT 794], in support of his argument. In the above decision, in Paragraph 19, this court held as follows :

“19. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is to be considered in the light of the aforesaid principles. The order is blank on whether the decision to take cognizance and issue summons was taken on the materials available in the final report made under S.173 (2) or on the materials made available by the complainant in the inquiry under S. 200. The order makes it clear that the learned Magistrate has not considered the question on the proper perspective. In such circumstances, the order can only be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.”

6. In the decision in C.R Chandran v. State of Kerala [ILR 2024 (3) Ker. 245], in

paragraph 11, this Court held as follows :

“11. Therefore, an order taking cognizance should be self-speaking and the same should contain the materials relied on by referring the same in detail and based on the said materials the offences for which cognizance proposed to be taken are made out, so as to justify the order taking cognizance. The order of cognizance without disclosing the essentials described herein above, in the form of a cryptic, irrational and non-speaking, would not sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, the cryptic order taking cognizance challenged in this petition would require interference and accordingly order dated 23.07.2016 passed by the Magistrate is table to be set aside. However, the matter would require reconsideration by the Magistrate after considering the materials, including the statements given by CWs 1 to 3, afresh in view of the settled law herein above discussed. For the said purpose, the matter is liable to be remanded back to the trial court.”

7. Therefore, it is evident that while taking cognizance of an offence based on a private complainant, especially one filed as a protest complaint against a refer report filed by