An order taking cognizance against an accused person under Section 204 Cr. P.C. must show that the court has applied its mind to the material on record and come to a prima-facie conclusion that there exists sufficient ground for issuing process against the accused.

1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed with the prayer for quashing of the order. dated, 16.7.91 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, by which be has taken cognizance against the petitioners in respect of an offence under section 500 I.P.C.

2. The circumstances leading to the filing of the petition are that Shri Rama Kant Sharma filed a complaint on 10.4.91 in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli with the allegations that his wife Smt. Meena Sharma was admitted to the General Hospital, Karauli on 30.3.91 due to diarrhoea. Since, there was no vacant bed in the general medical ward, she was admitted by Dr. Ashok Jain in the Surgical Ward. It is alleged that at about 6 to 6.30 P.M. of that day, the petitioners, who were on duty and were taking round in the surgical ward, enquired as to who has admitted the patient, namely, Smt. Meena Sharma in the Surgical Ward. It is said that the complainant told that Dr. Ashok Jain had admitted her. On hearing this, the petitioners are said to have got annoyed and asked the complainant to remove the patient from the bed of Surgical Ward. It is said that the petitioners did not allow the drip to be completed which was being administered to the wife of the complainant. It is said that the petitioners abused the complainant. When the complainant told them that they should behave properly and he is a Lawyer, the petitioners are said to have used more abusive language and thus caused grave injury to the complainant. The complainant claimed that by their actions and conduct the petitioners had caused serious injury to the complainant's social reputation.

3. In support of his complaint, the complainant made his own statement and also produced Shri Ashok Singh and Mahavir Singh, two witnesses. On the basis of the contents of the complaint and their statement, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order dated, 16.7.91.

4. Shri J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised several contentions in support of the prayer made in the petition for quashing of the order dated, 16.7.91 and the complaint itself. Shri Goyal argued that since the petitioners are holding the post of Senior Specialists (Surgery) and C.A.S. in the Hospital and they were admittedly on their duty no cognizance could have been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without sanction of the Government under Section 197 Cr. P.C. Shri Goyal argued that the order of the learned Additional Cheif Judicial Magistrate is liable to be quashed only on the ground that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has completely ignored the mandatory provisions contained in Section 197 Cr. P.C. Shri Goyal then argued that the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate suffers from patent violation of the provisions of section -204 Cr. P.C., inasmuch as, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has not recorded any reason in taking cognizance against the petitioners. Shri Goyal submitted that the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate does not show that he has applied his mind to the requirement of existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Babuda and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1989 (1) RLR 898 . I am not making reference to other grounds urged by Shri Goyal, because, I do not consider them necessary for the purpose of decision of this petition.

5. Section- 204 Cr. P.C. makes provision for issue of process. The opening words of this section show that, the competent Magistrate who is taking cognizance, must form an opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Thus, before an order for taking cognizance and for issue of process is made, the court must feel satisfied that there exists sufficient ground for issue of process. The satisfaction of the competent court must