Point of Law: It is settled that taking cognizance is a well-known but undefined concept in criminal jurisprudence. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not define word "cognizance". The dictionary meaning of the word "cognizance" is 'judicial hearing of a matter'. Taking cognizance of offence by Magistrate under Criminal Procedure Code is laid down under Section 190 (1) of Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of impugned charge-sheet dated 16.1.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 18.3.2019 in Criminal Case No. 2527 of 2019 (State v. Pawan Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 0339 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC”), registered at Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Bulandshahr, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

Brief facts, as unfolded from the record as under:

3. The First Information Report dated 29.3.2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali Shahr, Bulandshahr, has been lodged by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 against the applicant and unknown employees of Tehsil, Dadri, stating that the father of the first informants/opposite party nos. 2 & 3 was the owner and recorded tenure holder of agriculture land of Khata No. 986, Gata No. 1578/4 area 0.4680 hectare. After the death of their father they became owner of the aforesaid land on the basis of registered will and are in possession of the said agriculture land, their names have been mutated in the record of rights. The applicant prepared a forged fabricated sale deed dated 30.5.1974/19.6.1974 in the name of his father Ram Chandra from the first informants' father Raghuver Dayal relating to the land of area 1818 sq. yards of Gata No. 1578/4. The applicant replaced the aforesaid sale deed by another sale deed which had been executed by Teekam Singh in favour of Smt. Satyawati Devi wife of Shive Kumar on 30.5.1974 and registered on 19.6.1974 as document no. 1813 Bahi no. 1 Zild no. 994-997 page no. 279/87-88 with the help of the employees of concerned department. The applicant tried to mutate the land of the first informants in his favour on the basis of a forged sale deed. When the first informants came to know about the fake registration of the sale deed, the first information report was lodged.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT:

4. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed that the impugned order is being passed without applying judicial mind in taking cognizance on printed proforma wherein, dates have been filled up by the court employee and initial signature has been made by the Magistrate concerned. The learned counsel has submitted that the dispute raised by the first informant is purely a civil dispute. The applicant filed a suit against the first informants on 30.9.2014 with regard to the property in question for permanent injunction. The court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 2, Bulandshahar granted interim injunction vide order dated 30.9.2014. Thereafter, the first informants appeared in the court below in Suit No. 217 of 2014 and prayed to restrain the applicant from alienating the property in question. The Investigating Officer without proper investigation filed charge sheet in the present case despite the fact that the matter with regard to the same property, on the basis of sale deed dated 19.6.1974 is pending consideration before the Civil Court in suit No. 217 of 2014 in which issues have been framed on 12.1.2019.

5. It has been further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed by the investigating officer in a mechanical manner without considering the evidence on record and the Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of taking cognizance and passed the impugned order dated 18.3.2019 in an arbitrary manner without applying judicial mind on printed proforma by filling up the dates. Therefore, the impugned charge-sheet, the cognizance order and further proceedings pursuant thereto is an abuse of the process of the court and is liable to be quashed. He relied upon the decisi