Judicial cognizance requires reasoned orders, ensuring rational connections between facts and conclusions.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

CRL.MC NO. 4072 OF 2025 ------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2025

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.919/2025 registered by the Thiruvalla Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 420 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla (in short, ‘Learned Magistrate’).

2. The prosecution case, in essence, is that, the petitioners, who are the senior officials of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, knowing that 41.61 Acres of land is Panchami land (known as ‘DC land’) cannot be sold to persons outside the depressed categories, with the intention to cheat the 2^nd respondent had allegedly convinced the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents regarding the fitness of land for mining purposes and received a total consideration of Rs.10,91,90,494/-. As the property was DC land, the same could not be utilized by the 2^nd respondent, who suffered a loss. Thus, the petitioners have committed the above offences.

3. I have heard; Shri. Santhosh Mathew, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Thomas P Makil, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, though raised several grounds submits that he would be satisfied, for the time being, if this Court considers the legality of Annexure A8 order passed by the Learned Magistrate, who has taken a cognizance of the offence on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent without assigning any reasons for the same. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court inOm Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra [2025 KHC Online 6096], to canvass the position that a Magistrate before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short, ‘ BNSS ’) is obliged to consider the submissions of the concerned Police Officer and applies his mind judicially both on the complaint and the submission of the Police Officer, and then pass a reasoned order in an effective and comprehensive manner. He contends that, a reading of Annexure A8 order reveals that the learned Magistrate has only passed a cryptic order without any application of mind, which is against the ratio inOm Prakash Ambadkar’ s case (supra). He also places reliance on the decision of this Court inMohankumar v. K. Jayakumar [2025 KHC Online 1151] to demonstrate, what is meant by a reasoned order, which is succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inUnion of India (UOI) v. Mohan Lal Capoor [1973 (2) SCC 836] . He prays he that Annexure A8 order may be set aside and the learned Magistrate be directed to reconsider the matter as per the principles laid down inOm Prakash Ambadkar’ case (supra), and by reserving the right of the petitioners to challenge Annexure A7 complaint, if an exigency arises.

5. The 3^rd respondent had complaint against the accused persons alleging that they had hatched a conspiracy and committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The learned Magistrate passed Annexure A8 order which reads as follows:

“Heard both sides. On a perusal of the records, I am satisfied that offence alleged is prima facie made out in the case. Therefore forward the complaint to SHO, Thiruvalla.”

7. In Om Prakash Ambadkar’ s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering a plethora of decisions on the point has held as follows:

“34. In light of the judicial interpretation and evolution of S.156(3) of the CrPC by various decisions of this Court as discussed above, it becomes clear that the changes intr