SC: MAGISTRATE’S COGNIZANCE ORDER VALID EVEN WITHOUT DETAILED REASONS:

SC: MAGISTRATE’S COGNIZANCE ORDER VALID EVEN WITHOUT DETAILED REASONS:

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a Magistrate's order taking cognizance of a police report cannot be set aside merely on the ground that it lacks detailed reasoning. The Court emphasized that as long as the Magistrate records a finding regarding the existence of a prima facie case after examining the case records, including the case diary and other relevant materials, there is no requirement for the order to explicitly state the reasons.

In delivering this judgment, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah overturned the decision of the Jharkhand High Court, which had interfered with the trial court's cognizance order on the basis that it was not a reasoned one. The Supreme Court found that the trial court had rightly taken cognizance based on the prima facie materials available against the accused, and therefore, the absence of elaborate reasoning did not render the order invalid.

“In the present case, we find that the Additional Judicial Commissioner has taken cognizance while recording a finding that - from a perusal of the case diary and case record, a prima facie case was made out against the accused, including the Appellants. In Bhushan Kumar v State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, this Court held that an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order.”, the court observed. 

“Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.”, the court observed in Bhushan Kumar.

Furthermore, the Court also referred to the case of State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539, wherein it was held that a Magistrate is not obligated to record any reasons at the stage of issuing summons to the accused. This precedent supports the view that detailed reasoning is not a mandatory requirement during the initial stage of taking cognizance, thereby reinforcing the principle that the absence of explicit reasons does not invalidate such orders.

“For reasons aforesaid and on an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019, being in accordance with law, was not required to be interfered with by the High Court.”, the court held. In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.