A cognizance order must demonstrate an application of mind and provide reasons or materials against the accused. Simply filling in the word 'cognizance' without any reasoning or consideration of the materials is not sufficient. Such an order is not in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 04.07.2014 passed in Ratu P.S. Case No. 128 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 2974 of 2013, whereby cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 342, 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that for the same cause of action and for the same allegation another FIR has been lodged, which is numbered as Maner P.S. Case No. 320 of 2014 [in the State of Bihar] against the petitioners, which amounts to abuse of the process of law.

5. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and the learned Court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners.

6. The Court has perused the cognizance order dated 04.07.2014, from which, it transpires that no reason has been assigned as to what are the materials against the petitioners are available, who happens to be the in-laws of O.P. No. 2

7. In view of the fact that the cognizance order is not in accordance with law, it is well settled that the detailed order is not required for taking cognizance, however, at least application of mind must be there in the cognizance order. In the present case, the word ‘cognizance’ has been filled up in the said order of taking cognizance by filling the blank space.

8. As such, the order dated 04.07.2014 passed in Ratu P.S. Case No. 128 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 2974 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

9. This criminal miscellaneous petition, is accordingly, disposed of.