Cognizance and summons are distinct: Magistrate need only be prima facie satisfied, and reasons need not be recorded.

Taking cognizance is a judicial application of mind to the offence, while issuing summons is a later step requiring the Magistrate to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons at the summons stage, because the Code does not mandate a speaking order for issuance of process. A challenge to a summoning order may be raised through inherent jurisdiction in an appropriate case, and maintainability under that route was recognised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether taking cognizance of an offence is the same as issuing summons to an accused; (ii) Whether a Magistrate is required to record reasons while issuing summons under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable to challenge the summoning order.

Issue (i): Whether taking cognizance of an offence is the same as issuing summons to an accused.

Analysis: Cognizance means judicial application of mind to the allegations for the purpose of initiating proceedings, whereas issuance of summons is a later step taken after the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Cognizance is of the offence and not of the person, while summons is the process by which the accused is required to appear before the court.

Conclusion: Taking cognizance is not the same as issuing summons.

Issue (ii): Whether a Magistrate is required to record reasons while issuing summons under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate must be prima facie satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, but the statute does not require a detailed or speaking order. The relevant provisions do not mandate an express statement of reasons for issuance of summons, and a summoning order cannot be quashed merely because reasons were not separately recorded.

Conclusion: The Magistrate is not required to record reasons while issuing summons.

Issue (iii): Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable to challenge the summoning order.

Analysis: The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked where warranted, and prior decisions recognise maintainability of such a challenge in an appropriate case. The contrary view taken by the High Court was not accepted.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The legal principles governing cognizance and issuance of process were affirmed, but the challenge to the summoning order failed on merits and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate need only be prima facie satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding at the stage of issuing process, and a summoning order under Section 204 need not be a reasoned order.

---