Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, at the stage of taking cognizance on a complaint and issuing process, the Magistrate must indicate application of mind to the complaint and the statements recorded, and whether the order issuing process can stand when it contains no sufficient indication that such satisfaction was formed.
Analysis: Cognizance on a complaint under the Code requires the Magistrate to apply judicial mind to the facts alleged in the complaint and the statements recorded, and to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The satisfaction required is only a prima facie one and is distinct from a finding that the accused is liable to be convicted. Although a detailed or speaking order is not mandatory at the stage of issuing process, the order must still show sufficient indication that the Magistrate considered whether the complaint and supporting statements disclose an offence and make the accused answerable before the court. If such indication is absent, the High Court may intervene to prevent abuse of the criminal process.
Conclusion: The order issuing process did not sufficiently disclose application of mind and was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the orders of the Magistrate and the High Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: An order issuing process on a complaint must contain sufficient indication that the Magistrate applied judicial mind and formed an opinion that the complaint and supporting material disclose sufficient ground for proceeding; otherwise, the process is liable to be quashed.