Point of Law : Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed and reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on a charge-sheet; however, in the facts of the case, the Court took the view that since the summoning order had been issued by filling up the blanks on a printed proforma the same could not be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing alongwith Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 20.11.2020 in Case Crime No. 402/2020 under Sections 324, 323 and 504 Indian Penal Code Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. The principal ground which is sought to be urged for seeking quashing of the proceedings is that the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance is without application of mind and has been passed mechanically without assigning any detailed reasons. It has been further argued that as per the FIR version, the weapon used in commission of offence could not be described to be a “dangerous weapon” so as to constitute an offence under Section 324 IPC and this aspect of the matter having not been examined by the Magistrate while taking cognizance of the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance cannot be sustained. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Utaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157, Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2009) 67 ACC 532, and Vineet Agarwal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, (Application u/s 482 No.15450 of 2020, decided on 11.11.2020).

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has controverted the aforesaid submissions by pointing out that the question as to whether the weapon of offence in a given case would be a “dangerous weapon” would be a question of fact to be examined on the basis of evidence. In the instant case, from the nature of injuries as have been shown in the injury report, it cannot be conclusively said at this stage of the proceedings that the weapon of offence cannot be held to be a “dangerous weapon”.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that pursuant to the registration of the FIR dated 09.11.2020, the matter was investigated and a police report under Section 173 of the Code was submitted. The Magistrate having the advantage of police report and material submitted along with the same has taken cognizance in exercise of powers under Section 190 (1) (b) and the order taking cognizance clearly states that the Magistrate had perused the charge-sheet, the case diary and the materials which had been submitted along with the same and on the basis thereof had held that there was sufficient material to take cognizance and to register the case. He has further submitted that while taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b), it is not mandatory for the court to record detailed reasons for its satisfaction. In support of his submissions, learned AGA-I has placed reliance upon the decisions in State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta, AIR 2019 SC 2499, U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and others, (2000) 3 SCC 745, Kanti Bhadra Shah and another Vs. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722, and Mathai Vs. State of Kerala, (2005) 3 SCC 260.

6. The principal issue which thus arises is with regard to the manner of taking cognizance and issuing process as per the procedure prescribed under the Code and as to whether detailed and elaborate reasons are required to be recorded at the stage of taking cognizance or issuing of process.

7. After completion of the stage of investigation and placing of the final report by the police to a competent Magistrate, the stage of trial is to begin. As a precursor of the stage, the steps which are envisaged under the Code are as follows : (i) taking cognizance of the offence; (ii) ascertaining whether any prima facie case exists against the accused person