2022 Supreme(Del) 1030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Sanjit Bakshi - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
Crl.M.C. 4177 of 2019 and Crl M.A.34231 of 2019
Decided On : 19-05-2022
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate, with, Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Trisha Mittal, Mr. Kartikeye Dang, Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, APP, SI Divya Gehlot, P.S. South Campus, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the magistrate to apply judicial mind before taking cognizance of an offense, as well as the importance of the magistrate taking notice of the accusations and applying his mind to the allegations before initiating proceedings.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 190, 167, Indian Penal Code, Sections 447, 506, 420, 120B - The court discussed the provisions of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the requirement for the magistrate to apply judicial mind before taking cognizance of an offense. The court referred to case laws to highlight the importance of the magistrate taking notice of the accusations and applying his mind to the allegations before initiating proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order for being cryptic and passed without application of judicial mind, directing the Trial Court to re-consider the issue of taking cognizance afresh and to pass a speaking order on the basis of the charge sheet.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed seeking quashing of the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-06, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, whereby cognizance was taken in pursuance of a charge sheet filed in FIR no. 509/2015 under Sections 447/506/420/120B IPC registered at P.S. South Campus.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order was set aside for being cryptic and passed without application of judicial mind, and the Trial Court was directed to re-consider the issue of taking cognizance afresh and to pass a speaking order on the basis of the charge sheet.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of judicial mind by the magistrate before taking cognizance of an offense and the adequacy of the impugned order in reflecting the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for the magistrate to apply judicial mind before taking cognizance of an offense, as well as the importance of the magistrate taking notice of the accusations and applying his mind to the allegations before initiating proceedings.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 18.09.2018 was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to re-consider the issue of taking cognizance afresh and to pass a speaking order on the basis of the charge sheet.
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-06, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, whereby cognizance was taken in pursuance of charge sheet dated 04.12.2017 filed in FIR no. 509/2015 under Sections 447/506/420/120B IPC registered at P.S. South Campus.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.09.2018 on the grounds as mentioned in para 3 of the petition.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1.
4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order had been passed in the cryptic manner and without application of judicial mind. It is also not mentioned in the impugned order regarding which offences, the cognizance was taken by the Trial Court and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. FIR no. 509/2015 dated 06.09.2015 under Sections 420/467/471/120B IPC was got registered at P.S. South Campus, Delhi on the basis of complaint made by Vanita Vohra. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 47/506/420/120B IPC. The Trial Court at the time of taking the cognizance on the basis of charge sheet passed the following order:-
Counsel for the complainant undertakes to file vakalatnama during the course of the day.
Heard. Record perused.
Cognizance of offence taken.
Accused be summoned through IO for 22.01.2019.
6. Section 190 empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence in certain circumstances. Sub-section (1) reads as under:-
Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.-1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under Sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
7. Cognizance implies application of judicial mind by the Magistrate to the facts as stated in a complaint or a police report or upon information received from any person that an offence has been committed. It is the stage when a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. The cognizance of an offence is stated to be taken once the Magistrate applies his mind to the offence alleged and decides to initiate proceeding against the proposed accused. The Court before taking cognizance needs to be satisfied about existence of prima facie case on basis of material collected after conclusion of investigation. The magistrate has to apply his mind to the facts stated in the police report or complaint before taking cognizance for coming to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to proceed with the case. Taking of cognizance is a judicial function and judicial orders cannot be passed in a mechanical or cryptic manner. It is not only against the settled judicial norms but also reflects lack of application of judicial mind to the facts of the case. It is equally important to note that at time of taking cognizance a Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the proposed accused or to evaluate the merits of the material collected during investigation. It is not necessary to pass a detail order giving detailed reasons while taking cognizance. The order taking cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind.
8. In R.R. Chari V State of Uttar Pradesh, 951CriLJ 775 the question before the Supreme Court was as to when cognizance of the offence could be said to have been taken by the Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code. It was observed as under:-
It is clear from the wording of the section that the initiation of the proceedings against a person commences on the