Krishna Singh & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The present application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 02.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in Nautan P.S.Case No.100 of 2013, G.R. No.1532 of 2013, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 447, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) against the petitioners without properly appreciating and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as relevant material available on record, resulting miscarriage of justice to the petitioners.

The prosecution case, in brief, as per written statement of the informant namely, Chandra Shekhar Ojha submitted to the S.H.O., Nautan Police Station on 10.04.2013 is that on 10.04.2013 at 3.00 P.M., when he was sitting in his courtyard with his wife, in the meantime, the petitioners, who were armed with weapons stated to throw pellets upon him and when the informant objected, then Krishna Singh (petitioner no.1) ordered to kill him along with filthy language. Ram Babu (petitioner No.3) throw Bhala, which caused injury in his right leg. Prabhu Nath Singh (petitioner no.2) said that his wife is here, caught her and beat her because she wants to become sarpanch. In the meantime, Premshila Devi, Sima Devi and Rubi Devi caught the wife of informant and assaulted by fists and slaps and also snatched the mangalsutra and tops.

Without arguing on other available merits, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners straightaway submitted that impugned order dated 02.02.2016 is on the printed proforma, without application of judicial mind and, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the matter is still pending before the court.

For better understanding of the fact, it would be apposite to reproduce the cognizance order dated 02.02.2016 hereinbelow:-

In the case of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra [(1971) 2 SCC 654], the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that the process of taking cognizance does not involve any formal action, but it occurs as soon as the Magistrate applies his mind to the allegations and, thereafter, takes judicial notice of the offence. As provided by Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received from a person other than a police officer or even upon his own information or suspicion that such an offence has been committed. As has often been held, taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but, occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position where the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a police officer. Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report, prima facie he does so of the offence or offences disclosed in such report.

It is pointed out that Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner.

In view of aforesaid submission and by taking note of the fact that judicial orders cannot be allowed to be passed in a mechanical manner either by filling in blank on a printed proforma or by affixing a ready made seal etc. of the order on a plain paper. Such tendency must be deprecated and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. This reflects not only lack of application of mind to the facts of the case but is also against the settled judicial norms. Therefore, this practice must be stopped forthwith.

The cognizance/summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto, whereas the impugned cognizance order was passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and without satisfying as to which offence were prima-facie being made out against the applicant on the basis of the allegations made by the informant. The impugned cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is against the settled judicial norms.

Accordingly, this Court is prima facie convinced that the cognizance against these petitioners was taken in a very mechanical manner, that too, in a typed proforma, by way of fill up the blanks, as it is apparent from the impugned order of cognizance, without assigning any reason, therefore, the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 is hereby quashed and set-aside with a direction to learned trial court to pass a fresh order, supplying reasons in accordance with law, if the matter is still pending before the learned trial court.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Let the copy of the judgment be sent to learned trial court immediately.