Cognizance of offences by Magistrate requires a speaking order, reflecting consideration of all relevant materials.

ORDER

Dated this the 06^th day of March, 2026 The 1^st accused in C.C. No. 929 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, arising out of a private complaint, filed this Crl.Rev.Pet., being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 341, 323, 452, 354, 354A and 506(I)

r/w Section 149 of the IPC .

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant originally filed a private complaint, which was sent to the SHO under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for registration of the crime and investigation. Accordingly, the police registered Crime No. 1054 of 2018 of Taliparamba police station. After investigation, the police filed a refer report. Aggrieved by the said refer report, he preferred a protest complaint in which the learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry and taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 341, 323, 452, 354, 354A and 506(I) r/w Section

149 of the IPC .

3. Aggrieved by the said order taking cognizance of the offences, the petitioner preferred Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 1096 of 2024 before this Court. As per the order dated 17.12.2024, this Court has set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, holding that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence without passing a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the the learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

4. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed a fresh order dated 28.07.2025, which is under challenge in this Crl.Rev.Pet. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the order dated 28.07.2025 also the same mistake was committed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the above order also.

5. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant.

6. In paragraph 4 of the order dated 17.12.2024 in Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 1096 of 2024, this Court held as follows :

“ 4. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that there is no reason stated by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance, especially when a refer report has been filed by the Investigating Officer. The solitary reason available in the impugned order is that the learned Magistrate is satisfied that there exists prima facie material against the accused. This Court is afraid that whether such. observation would suffice, since the cognizance has been taken as against the refer report. This Court is of the opinion that the Order, in the given situation, should have been a speaking one.”

7. It was in the above context this Court set aside the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P No. 4742 of 2019 and directed the learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

8. In the order dated 28.07.2025, the reason stated by the learned Magistrate in paragraphs 14 and 15 are extracted below for reference.

“14. The leamed counsel for the complainant contended that the oral testimony of PWI clearly discloses the existence of prima facie materials to proceed against the accused. It was rightiy argued that, at this stage, the court is not required to evaluate the probative value of the evidence as in a full-fledged trial, but only to ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed.

15. Considering the submissions and the materials on record, I am of the view that prima facie materials are available against the accused to proceed with the matter. Hence, I hold that the court can take cognizance of the offence, and