ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.6106/2017 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections

341, 354-A, 504, 506, 509 read wi7th Section 34 of IPC.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

On 8.6.2015, the sub-inspector of Police, Madiwala registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.1027/2015 for offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 506, 509 read with Section 149 of IPC on the basis of the information lodged by respondent No.1.

3. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that none of the ingredients for which charge sheet is filed is made out in the materials placed before the Court. The second limb of argument is that the Magistrate has taken cognizance without applying his mind.

4. The learned counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P. 10263/2021. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya .vs. Jagat Narain Thapak and another1. Referring to these judgments, he would vehemently argue and contend that the Magistrate while taking cognizance has not applied his mind. The order taking cognizance does not reflect that Magistrate has satisfied himself independently before taking cognizance.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant has however countered the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Referring to the charge sheet materials, he would point out that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has recorded the statement

1 AIR 2018 sc 1229

of ten eye witnesses and therefore, no indulgence can be granted at this juncture.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent-complainant and the learned SPP.

7. The taking of cognizance of the offence is the area exclusively within the domain of the magistrate. The expression “take cognizance of an offence” is not defined in the Code. In its broad and literal sense it would mean “take notice of an offence” and would include the taking notice of an offence in a judicial capacity with a view to the initiation of judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence. Therefore, at this stage, the magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint and not whether there are sufficient ground for conviction. Whether evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the time of trial and not at the stage of an inquiry. At the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record his detailed reasons.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Nupur Talwar .vs. CBI2 has held that when Magistrate takes cognizance of offence, there is no pronouncement on the guilt of the accused. Apex Court was of the view that cognizance is simply a frame of mind that there is prima facie evidence against the accused that he might be involved in the case. It is in this background, the Apex Court further held that higher Courts must exercise atmost restraint and must not interfere with the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance.

2 AIR 2012 SC 1921

9. The charge sheet materials disclose that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has recorded statement of ten witnesses who are cited as eye witness. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence at this juncture. Judgment cited by petitioner not applicable to the present set of facts. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present case on hand.

10. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is dismissed.