THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.824 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and

442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioners, assailing the order dated 11.07.2025 passed in C.C. No.2212 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

2. Heard Mr. P.V.L. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ch.Subramanyam, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the cognizance order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from non-application of mind. He submits that the order is mechanical in nature and fails to reflect any reasoning or judicial satisfaction regarding the existence of a prima facie case.

3.2. He relies on several decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, holding that a cognizance order must be a speaking and reasoned one, demonstrating that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the materials before taking cognizance. Reliance is placed on the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court dated 06.10.2025 in Crl.R.C. No.676 of 2025, 04.04.2017 in Crl.P. No.2458 of 2017, and 06.01.2025 in Crl.P. No.6604 of 2020, which reiterate the principle that a cryptic order, devoid of reasons, cannot be sustained.

4.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 1-State, and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences involving forgery and cheating. They contend that the material on record prima facie establishes fraudulent execution of a document by the petitioner under the pretext of securing an old-age pension for the de facto complainant.

4.2. It is further submitted that the matter was duly placed before the learned Magistrate, who, after perusing the record, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons. The State submits that the order of cognizance is legally sustainable, and that the requirement of a detailed charge sheet is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance once the Magistrate forms an opinion that a prima facie case exists, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC

539. They, therefore, pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have carefully perused the material on record and considered the rival submissions of both learned counsel.

6. The stage of taking cognizance represents a crucial juncture in criminal proceedings. It is at this point that the Magistrate applies judicial mind to the materials placed by the investigating agency or complainant and decides whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, emphasized that the process of taking cognizance must reflect application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts and materials, as this is not an empty formality. Similarly, in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd., (2013) 4 SCC 505, the Apex Court observed that the Magistrate must indicate, even briefly, that he has examined the complaint and material evidence and is satisfied that there exists a prima facie case for issuance of process. The order need not contain detailed reasons, but must at least disclose judicial application of mind.

8. In the present case, the impugned order of cognizance dated 11.07.2025 is in the form of a rubber-stamped pro forma, wherein the sections, accused numbers, and dates are merely filled in without any narrative or reasoning. There is no indication that the learned Magistrate has examined the complaint, statements, or documents or that he has formed an independent opinion regarding the sufficiency of material to proceed.

9. In these