The main legal point established is that the cognizance of an offence requires a judicial notice and an application of mind by the court. The court emphasized the necessity to reflect reasons for summoning an accused and to form a reasoned opinion before issuing a summoning order.

JUDGMENT :

This C-482 Application is being pressed by the present applicant on a very short premise with regard to the manner in which the cognizance have been taken by the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, district Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 7353 of 2018, State Vs. Haneef Malik, whereby the present applicant has been summoned to be tried, for his alleged involvement in commission of the offences under Section 3/4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The solitary argument, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the applicant is, that the summoning order, which is on a format, is without an application of mind nor the same is reflected from the order itself that the Court prior to passing of the summoning had applied its rational, based on material before it.

2. Brief facts of the case are, that an FIR, being FIR No. 446 dated 20.12.2017, was got registered by the complainant Jagdhish Dhakriyal, for the alleged involvement of the named accused person i.e. the present applicant herein, for his alleged involvement in commission of the offence under Section 3/4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the summoning order itself is taken into consideration in its specified format, which runs in apparent contravention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in 1998 (5) SCC 749, Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, and that of the judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in 2015 (4) SCC 609, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and the 2013 (4) SCC 505, GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Ltd., as well as the judgment of the coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court as reported in 2021 (114) ACC 125, Vishnu Kumar Gupta and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another.

4. The factual backdrop of the case is, that in pursuance to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the matter was put to investigation and a Chargesheet, being Chargesheet No. 8 dated 10.12.2018, was got registered and submitted by the Investigating Officer, on which the cognizance have been taken by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, district Udham Singh Nagar.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, that in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the legislature has used the words “taking of cognizance” of an offence on a report which has been submitted by the police, it has a wider social repercussion and that is why the cognizance, which would in its literal sense, would mean that there has had to be an apparent reflection of an authority, who is ceased with the judicial powers, to try an applicant for an offence, who has had to apply its mind, in order to show its consideration, or the material before it, which should be assessed by the Court before could have necessitated summoning of an accused person for the commission of an offence.

6. Apparently, in the instant case, the summoning order, which has been issued by the Court is in a specified format, which doesn’t even reflect that there was a consideration of any materials which were placed before the Court nor does it reflect an application of mind as to how, the material which was placed before the Court, would have had a bearing which could have necessitated the summoning of an accused for being tried for an offence, because as per the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment rendered in Pepsi Food Ltd. (supra), it has laid down, that summoning of an accused person for being tried in a criminal offence has a serious social consequences and it should not be done in a careless manner by the judicial officer, who takes cognizance to the chargesheet submitted by the police officials, because it would always have very wide social stigmatic effect, on the person who has been summoned by t