IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial cognizance requires a magistrate to apply their mind to the evidence before proceeding; mechanical processes in cognizance undermine personal liberty.

ORDER :

1. This criminal writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 547/2017 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur and all consequential proceedings arising out of it including order taking cognizance dated 04.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 670/17.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been filed with malice and ulterior motive. It is contended that relations between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are not cordial and in order to settle personal score, impugned FIR has been lodged, wherein, false and frivolous allegations have been levelled just to humiliate and harass petitioner No. 1 and his relatives. Counsel submits that entire proceedings initiated by police is illegal as same is in violation of mandatory sections 13, 14 and 15 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short 'PITA'). It is also contented by learned counsel for the petitioners that after filing charge-sheet in the matter, learned trial court vide order dated 04.10.2017 took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the PITA Act. A bare perusal whereof clearly reveals that the learned trial court in a quite mechanical manner and without application of mind, by merely filling the blanks in a stereo typed format, has passed the order taking cognizance. He further submits that the order dated 04.10.2017 shows that the learned trial court has not applied its mind while taking cognizance and has just fulfilled empty formalities. He thus, prays that the impugned FIR and all other consequential proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 04.10.2017 may be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions of the petitioner's counsel. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance dated 04.10.2017 is a typed format with blanks and while filling up these blank, the same has been passed.

4. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

5. So far as the prayer of the petitioners' counsel seeking quashing of the impugned FIR is concerned, a bare perusal of FIR, discloses commission of cognizable offences and after thorough investigation, police has also submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. The case of the present petitioners does not cover under any guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for by this Court so as to quash the impugned FIR.

6. However, this Court deems it fit and proper to make certain observations on the order taking cognizance as this Court is not convinced and satisfied with the manner and way, same has been dealt with by the learned trial court.

7. At the stage of cognizance, it is mandatory for the learned trial magistrate to consider the entire documents submitted along with the charge-sheet/complaint and the evidence adduced in support of complaint in order to find out prima facie case against the accused to issue process. Initiation of the criminal proceedings is not mere formality for the learned magistrates and when charge-sheet or complaint is submitted before them then learned magistrate is not to act as a mouth piece or as a post office for the prosecution. At the stage of cognizance, it is expected from the learned magistrate to examine the material produced by the investigation agency or complainant and to examine basic infirmities which appear in the prosecution case. It is true that at the stage of cognizance, meticulous examination of evidence is not required but for limited purpose of issuance criminal process, the learned magistrates are at least, required to apply judicial mind as initiation of criminal prosecuti