Judicial cognizance must involve application of mind and cannot be a mechanical process; failure to consider objections renders the order invalid.

ORDER :

(K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.)

The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 25.09.2024, taking cognizance of the case in CC.No.553/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tuticorin.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, an FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.23/2021 on 11.08.2021 against the fifteen (15) persons for the alleged offences under Sections 120 (B), 417, 420, 466, 468, 471 , 166 (A) & 34 of IPC .

3. The Respondent-Police after completing the investigation has filed a final report, against thirteen (13) persons for the alleged offences under Sections 120 (B), 417, 420, 466, 468, 471 , 166 (A) & 34 of IPC . The Respondent Police in the final report has deleted the Accused Nos. 1,4,8,9,10,11,12 and 14 shown in the FIR but included six (6) other accused who were not named in the FIR.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after receipt of the final report sent a notice dated 22.08.2024 to the petitioner/de-facto complainant, calling upon him to offer his objections with regard to the deletion and inclusion of the accused, and directed him to appear on 06.09.2024.

5. It is evident from the records that the learned Judicial Magistrate has sent a letter dated 09.09.2024 to the Respondent-Police directing them to add the first accused Santhanamari wife of Murugesan shown in the FIR and file additional charge-sheet and in pursuance of the same, the Sub- Inspector of Police has submitted a letter to the learned Judicial Magistrate stating that since the first accused Santhanamari wife of Murugesan was already reported dead, they have deleted the said accused from the charge- sheet.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 taking cognizance of the case for the offences under Section 120(B), 420, 468, 471, 465 and 109 of IPC , 1860 as against the charge-sheeted accused in CC.No.553/2021 and ordered for issuance of summons to them.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner has entered into appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 06.09.2024, in pursuance of the notice received and raised objections to the final report, that the learned Judicial Magistrate adjourned the matter to 09.09.2024 and thereafter to 25.09.2021 on which date, the impugned order came to be passed, that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file protest petition, that the learned Judicial Magistrate without considering the objections raised and without any sort of any enquiry, has mechanically directed to add the name of the first accused Santhanamari wife of Murugesan who was already reported dead.

8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate in the letters sent to the Respondent-Police has observed that the defendant complainant entered into appearance and raised objections for the deletion of the accused, but neither considered nor decided the objections raised by the petitioner.

9. The learned Judicial Magistrate has not assigned any reason for rejecting the objections and for addition of the first accused alone. It is not the case of the respondent that the learned Judicial Magistrate before issuing the letter dated 09.09.2024 has passed any order with regard to the deletion of the accused in the charge-sheet. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the eight accused named in the FIR was deleted in the charge-sheet, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file the protest petition, instead the learned Judicial Magistrate, by sending a letter dated on 09.09.2024, has then proceeded to pass the impugned order, taking cognizance.

10. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate has not considered the reasons for deletion of eight accused in the charge-sheet and the objections raised by the defendant/complainant, the impugned communication dated 09.09.2024 sent to the Respondent-Police cannot legally be sustaine