Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a Jharkhand High Court judgment that had quashed a cognizance order under Sections 498A, 406 and 420 IPC and the SC/ST Act for not disclosing the prima facie material against the accused and remitted the matter for a fresh order. Following Bhushan Kumar and Rakhi Mishra, the Court held that an order taking cognizance or issuing process need not record detailed reasons; it is enough that the Magistrate applied his mind to the case diary and record and found a prima facie case. The appellants were left free to seek discharge at the stage of framing of charge.
Issues
- Whether a court taking cognizance on a police report must record detailed reasons or disclose the prima facie material against each accused in the cognizance order.
- Whether the FIR, alleged to be mala fide, an afterthought and a civil dispute given a criminal colour, was liable to be quashed.
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the cognizance order and remitting the matter for a fresh order.
Provisions considered
- Sections 498A, 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860The FIR and chargesheet alleged cruelty, criminal breach of trust and cheating by the deceased husband's first wife and children against the informant, the second wife. The Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance of these offences on perusal of the case diary and case record, which the Court found to be a correct application of mind. (¶¶ 2, 12, 15)
- Section 3(1)(iv) and Section 3(1)(g), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The FIR invoked Section 3(1)(iv) and the chargesheet and cognizance order invoked Section 3(1)(g) on allegations that the informant was ousted from her land and house and abused by reference to her tribal identity. The Court held that the cognizance order, recording a prima facie case under these provisions from the case diary, was in accordance with law. (¶¶ 2, 3, 12, 15, 21)
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Relying on Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that a summoning order under Section 204 requires no explicit reasons; it is imperative only that the Magistrate has taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the police report and materials. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Through Rakhi Mishra v. State of Bihar, the Court restated that the High Court's power under Section 482 is exercised only in exceptional circumstances where a prima facie case is not made out, the test being whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish a case. (¶ 17)
Held
- An order taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because it is not a reasoned order. Where the Additional Judicial Commissioner recorded that the case diary and case record had been perused and disclosed a prima facie case under the IPC and SC/ST Act against the accused, the approach was correct: the court first applies its mind to the material to see whether an offence is committed and then identifies the persons who appear to have committed it, before moving to issuance of summons or warrant. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- At the stage of deciding whether to take cognizance, the court has only to see whether material is forthcoming to indicate commission of the alleged offences; it is not empowered to go into the veracity of that material, which is reserved for trial. On examining the Hindi chargesheet itself, the Court found it recorded that investigation, site inspection and the complainant's statements had found the allegations true against all accused including the appellants. (¶ 20)
- A bare averment that the trial court did not record the prima facie material because it does not exist is too simplistic and does not shift from the accused the burden of taking a categorical stand that no material whatsoever for taking cognizance exists in the police papers or case diary. (¶ 19)
- The plea that the FIR was mala fide, an afterthought and a civil dispute converted into a criminal case did not require detailed discussion in view of the answer on the first issue; no prayer to quash the FIR was pressed before the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 5, 18)
- The High Court's approach in setting aside the cognizance order for non-disclosure of prima facie material and remitting for a fresh order was totally erroneous; although the informant had filed no cross-appeal, to render complete justice and set right the legal error the impugned judgment was set aside in toto and the cognizance order restored. (¶¶ 15, 21, 22)
- The appellants retain full liberty to press for discharge at the stage of framing of charge, including by showing that the investigation yielded no material warranting trial; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits. (¶ 24)
Result
Appeal disposed of; High Court judgment set aside in toto and the cognizance order dated 13.06.2019 left undisturbed; appellants to appear before the Additional Judicial Commissioner on the next date, with liberty to seek discharge at the stage of framing of charge; Registry to communicate the judgment to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi; no order as to costs.