ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to mainly on the ground of cryptic order passed by the Special Judge for trial of Cases under Economic Offences in C.C.No. 59 of 2022, dated 10.10.2022 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 406, 426, 468, 470, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioner and others. The said cognizance order is as follows:

“The complaint is taken on file as CC 59/2022 against the Accused No. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/s 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 and U/s.420, 406, 426, 468, 470, 471, 120-B of IPC. Issue summons to Accused No. 1 to 4. Call on 21.11.2022.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order taking cognizance has to be set aside as learned Sessions Judge has not given any reasons for taking cognizance.

3. Several quash petitions are being filed before this Court questioning the very cognizance order taken by the learned Magistrates or the Special Courts. The cognizance orders are bereft of any reasons and bald assertions are made for taking cognizance; to illustrate:

(i) It is mentioned in the cognizance orders that “having gone through the statements and other material, the court is satisfied to take cognizance” and accordingly summons are issued.

(ii) As in the present case, it is mentioned in the cognizance order that “the complaint is taken on file against the accused for offences punishable U/s….”

(iii) Cognizance order, stamps are made and stamped on the document/complaint, Blanks are filled about the cognizance taken under the provisions and the next date of hearing and issuing summons to accused.

(iv) In some of the cases in the remand report, police have prepared the notes of the Magistrate and the Magistrate has filled up the offences, date and signs the remand order.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 case held that the order of issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such summoning cannot be done on mere asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. India Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505 the Hon’ble Supreme Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcement Officer vs. Videocon International Limited, (2008) 2 SCC 492 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression ‘cognizance’ held that in criminal law ‘cognizance’ means becoming aware of and the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal’s case (supra), further held as follows:

“Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the Court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not.”

5. In Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 157 it is held as follows:

“17. Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or