A cognizance order must provide sufficient reasoning to establish a prima facie case; failure to do so renders the order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

AMBUJ NATH, J.

Heard the parties.

2. All these applications arise out of the same police case. Accordingly, all these application are being disposed of by common order.

3. The petitioners have filed this Cr.M.P. for quashing of order dated 08.06.2017 passed in connection with G(F) Case No. 85/2016 corresponding to TR-1777/2017, whereby and wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 33 of the Indian forest Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the bare perusal of the cognizance order manifests that cognizance has been taken in a very cryptic manner. The learned Magistrate has not given any reason for coming to its judicial satisfaction for finding the prima facie case to be true for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “JM Laboratories and Other Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another” as reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 208], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that;

“7. It will be relevant to refer to the summoning order which reads thus;

"Whereas your attendance is necessary to give evidence in a charge Sec. 18(a)(i) r/w Sec. 16(1)(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the accused M/s J.M. Laboratories, Vill. Bhanat, P.O- Ghtti, Subathu Road, Solan (H.P.). You are hereby requested to appear in person before the Hon'ble Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool at 10:30 AM on the 10^th day of August 2023.

Given under my hand the seal of the court this___day of July.”

8. In the judgment and order of even date in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", we have observed thus:

“33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons.

34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra):

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused.

36. The said