Back
ANSHUMAN
Abhishek Kumar Son of Jai Prakash Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.
2. The present Cr. Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in Bidupur P.S. Case No. 238 of 2021, by which, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIth-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Vaishali at Hajipur has took cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of POCSO Act and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that F.I.R. bearing Bidupur P.S. Case No. 238 of 2021 has been lodged on 05.05.2021 under Sections 341, 323, 325, 376, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He further submits that in the said case total eight persons were named accused. He also submits that the order of cognizance is bad in law due to the reason that in the said cognizance order nothing whispered on merit, rather it has been passed in a routine manner. He further submits that it is false to state that on 18.08.2022 the victim was present in the court at the time of passing cogn
The court emphasized its authority to differ from the charge sheet at the time of taking cognizance and justified the issuance of warrant without summon based on the nature of the offences and the pe....
(1) Issuance of Process – Section 204 requires sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, which would mean the Court has to examine existence of sufficient grounds to proceed against the a....
Point of Law : Criminal breach of trust - Conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionab....
Cognizance cannot be taken on a second complaint based on similar facts after a negative report on the first complaint, as it leads to jurisdictional errors and manifest injustice.
The court established that a Magistrate must apply judicial consideration and provide reasoning before taking cognizance of offences, as mere summoning without such scrutiny is improper.
Judicial cognizance requires a magistrate to apply their mind to the evidence before proceeding; mechanical processes in cognizance undermine personal liberty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
