Magistrate Not Bound to Give Detailed Reasons for Cognizance: Supreme Court.


23 April 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which had remitted a matter back to the Additional Judicial Commissioner for passing a fresh order on cognizance. The apex court held that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence is not required to record detailed reasons for doing so.

The appeal arose from a case of Pramila Devi & Others v/s The State of Jharkhand & Another., where the Respondent No.2 (Informant) filed an FIR against the Appellants, who are the first wife and children of her deceased husband, alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(iv) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

 
 


The core allegation of the Informant was that the deceased had misrepresented himself as unmarried and married her, and subsequently, she and her children were harassed and ousted from their house by the deceased and the Appellants. The Additional Judicial Commissioner, after perusing the case diary and records, took cognizance of the offences against the accused, including the Appellants.

The High Court, in the Impugned Judgment, set aside this cognizance order, stating that the prima facie material against the Appellants had not been disclosed in the order, and remitted the matter for a fresh order.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellants challenged the High Court's decision to remit the matter, arguing that the entire criminal proceedings should have been quashed due to the absence of a prima facie case and the alleged mala fide intention behind the FIR.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, framed two key issues: firstly, whether the Additional Judicial Commissioner was obligated to record detailed reasons while taking cognizance, and secondly, whether the FIR was instituted with mala fide intention and liable to be quashed.

On the first issue, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that the High Court's approach was "totally erroneous." The apex court referred to the cognizance order, which explicitly mentioned the perusal of the 'case diary and case record' revealing a prima facie case against the accused. Citing precedents like Bhushan Kumar v State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that a summoning order under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. does not necessitate explicit reasons, as it is assumed that the Magistrate has applied their mind to the allegations and the accompanying materials.

The Court emphasized that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate's role is to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Detailed reasoning is not a legal requirement at this stage.

Regarding the Appellants' contention that the FIR was mala fide, the Supreme Court noted that the pleadings did not contain a categorical statement that no evidence had emerged during the police investigation to warrant the taking of cognizance against them. The Court also pointed out the State's argument that sufficient material justifying cognizance was indeed found during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court, having examined the chargesheet (despite the Appellants' failure to provide a translated copy as directed), found that the police had deemed the allegations true based on investigation, site inspection, and witness statements.

Consequently, the Supreme Court found that the cognizance order dated 13.06.2019 was in accordance with the law and did not warrant interference by the High Court. To rectify the High Court's error on the legal requirement of detailed reasons for taking cognizance, the Supreme Court set aside the Impugned Judgment in its entirety.

The appeal was disposed of, and the Appellants were directed to appear before the Additional Judicial Commissioner to face further proceedings in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court clarified that the Appellants retain the liberty to present their case for discharge at the appropriate stage, arguing the lack of sufficient material for trial. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all contentions of both the prosecution and the defense remain reserved.



SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2018  

Section 406., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 498A., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860