Cognizance under IPC Section 498A must reflect proper judicial application of mind and articulate prima-facie evidence; failure to do so invalidates the order.

JUDGMENT :

AMBUJ NATH, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is confining his prayer for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Chaibasa in connection with Kiriburu P.S. Case No. 18/2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 561/2015, registered for the offence under Section 4 98A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the order passed by the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Chaibasa, where cognizance of this case been taken without assigning any reason under Section 4 98A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.

4. Reliance has been placed upon the decision passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in the case of “Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Another” passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2744 of 2013, in which the Hon’ble Court has held that;

“22. The order taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and order issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., can very well be a composite order but as observed, the application of mind would be different in both cases. This application of mind must be reflected in the order itself. The order should not be mechanical. Magistrate has to mention at least that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the persons and what are the prima-facie materials to proceed against them. He need not pass a detail judgment evaluating the materials, which are before him. The detail reasons as to why he is taking cognizance or issuing process are not to be mentioned but at least what are the bare minimum prima-facie materials against the accused-petitioners should be mentioned in the order issuing summon and prima facie what offence is alleged, in the order taking cognizance.

23. Applying the aforesaid principle, while going through this impugned order, I find that though the Magistrate has mention that there are statements of the witnesses, but what are the prima-facie materials to proceed against these petitioners and others have not been whispered. In a most mechanical manner, in one line, this impugned order has been passed summoning the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd." and "Ramdev Food Products Private Limited" (supra) has held that summoning an accused is a very serious matter and has got far reaching implications on the person who has been summoned.

Thus, a serious order, i.e. summoning order should not be issued casually in a mechanical manner. I find that the order taking cognizance and the summoning order, in this case, is passed in a most casual manner without recording his satisfaction and as to what are the bare minimum materials available on record. I also find that the court has taken cognizance against the accused, which is not the mandate of law. As mentioned earlier cognizance is to be taken against an offence and warrant/ summon is to be issued against accused. Further, the nature of satisfaction will also have to be different while passing both the orders.

The facts, which appear before the Magistrate, have to be bifurcated by him, (i) offence centric (ii) person centric. The offence centric fact will be the basis of the order taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and person centric fact to be the basis of order under Section 204 Cr.P.C.”

5. No reason has been assigned as to what was the ground for the learned Court to come to its judicial satisfaction that prima facie case was found to be true under Section 4 98A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.

6. In view of the aforesaid fact, order taking cognizance dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Chaibasa is hereby set aside.

7. The matter is remanded back to the Court of learned A.C.