2025 (12) TMI 86 - SC - Indian Laws

Cognizance Restored Under IPC 498A, 406, 420 and SC/ST Act 3(1)(g); No Detailed Reasons Needed

PRAMILA DEVI & ORS. A1: PRAMILA DEVI A2: SATYANARAIN SAHU A3: KRISHNA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. R1: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND R2: JYOTI BECK

SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC order which had quashed the cognizance order and remitted the matter. SC held that the Additional Judicial ... Setting aside of cognizance Order by the High Court and matter remitted to the Additional Judicial Commissioner to pass order afresh as in the cognizance Order, prima facie material against the Appellants had not been disclosed. Whether the Additional Judicial Commissioner while taking cognizance has to record detailed reasons for taking cognizance? - HELD THAT:- There are no hesitation to record that the approach of the High Court was totally erroneous. Perusal of the Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019 discloses that the Additional Judicial Commissioner has stated that the ‘case diary and case record’ have been perused, which disclosed a prima facie case made out under Sections 498(A), 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(g) of the SC/ST Act against the accused including appellants. Further, we find the approach of the Additional Judicial Commissioner correct inasmuch as while taking cognizance, it firstly applied its mind to the materials before it to form an opinion as to whether any offence has been committed and thereafter went into the aspect of identifying the persons who appeared to have committed the offence. Accordingly, the process moves to the next stage; of issuance of summons or warrant, as the case may be, against such persons. In the present case, 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 (4) TMI 746 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order. Whether the FIR itself was instituted with mala fide intention and was liable to be quashed? - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the entire gamut of the pleadings of the Appellants does not disclose any categorical statement to the effect that during investigation by the police, no evidence has emerged to warrant taking of cognizance, much less against the Appellants. The only averment which has been made is that the Trial Court had not recorded the prima facie material against the Appellants because it does not exist. This is too simplistic an argument and does not shift the burden from the Appellants of taking a categorical stand that no material whatsoever for taking cognizance is available in the police papers/case diary against the Appellants. Be it noted, the State has argued that sufficient material warranting cognizance has been unearthed during the course of investigation. Here, the Court would pause to delve on what is the scope of the exercise of application of mind on the police papers/case diary for deciding as to whether to take cognizance or not - it has only to be seen whether there is material forthcoming to indicate commission of the offence(s) alleged. The concerned Court is not empowered to go into the veracity of the material at that time. That is why, the law provides for a trial where it is open to both the parties i.e., the prosecution as well as the defence to lead evidence(s) either to prove the materials which have come against the accused or to disprove such findings - it is found that chargesheet mentions that on the basis of investigation, site inspection and statements of the complainant, the police has found the allegations true against all the accused including appellants. The Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019, being in accordance with law, was not required to be interfered with by the High Court - Appeal disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether, while taking cognizance on a police report, the competent criminal court is required to record detailed reasons and disclose prima facie material against each accused in the cognizance order. 1.2 Whether, on the facts pleaded, the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed at the threshold on the ground that the FIR was mala fide and essentially reflected a civil dispute. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Requirement of detailed reasons / disclosure of prima facie material in cognizance order Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 The Court examined the settled position regarding the nature and content of orders taking cognizance and issuing process, with reference to earlier decisions including: (i) Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi); (ii) Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B.; (iii) Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi; (iv) Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal; (v) U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd.; (vi) U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Bhupendra Kumar Modi; (vii) Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta; (viii) Rakhi Mishra v. State of Bihar; and (ix) Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda; (x) State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta. 2.2 These authorities collectively reiterate that: (a) at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the court is only to be prima facie satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction; (b) the Magistrate/court must apply its mind to the accusations and material in the police report/complaint, but is not required to write a detailed, reasoned or 'speaking' order; (c) the law expressly requires reasons in certain situations (e.g., dismissal of complaint without issuing process), but not while issuing summons or framing charge; (d) the court at that stage is not to evaluate defence material nor to undertake a detailed assessment of the merits; and (e) once such discretion to issue process is exercised, superior courts ought not to substitute their own discretion save in exceptional cases where no prima facie case emerges. Interpretation and reasoning 2.3 The Court noted that the High Court had set aside the cognizance order solely on the ground that the order did not disclose the prima facie material against the accused and remitted the matter to the trial court to pass a fresh order after disclosing such material. 2.4 On examining the cognizance order dated 13.06.2019, the Court found that the Additional Judicial Commissioner had explicitly recorded that the 'case diary and case record' were perused and that a prima facie case under Sections 498A, 406, 420 IPC and Section 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act was made out against the accused, including the appellants, and thereafter proceeded to the next stage of identifying the persons to be proceeded against. 2.5 The Court held that this manner of taking cognizance showed due application of mind to the materials before the court and compliance with the settled legal position that only a prima facie view is required; the trial court is not mandated to spell out in detail the evidence or reasons at this stage. 2.6 In light of the cited precedents, the Court held that the High Court's insistence on a detailed disclosure of prima facie material and reasons in the cognizance order was 'totally erroneous' and contrary to established law, and that the order of cognizance could not be faulted merely for not being a reasoned or speaking order. Conclusions on Issue 1 2.7 The Court concluded that: (i) at the stage of taking cognizance on a police report, the court is not required to record detailed reasons or to set out the prima facie material in the order; (ii) it is sufficient that the order shows that the court has perused the police papers/case diary and formed an opinion that a prima facie case exists; and (iii) the cognizance order dated 13.06.2019 was in accordance with law and did not warrant interference. 2.8 Consequently, the High Court's judgment setting aside the cognizance order and remanding the matter for a fresh order disclosing prima facie material was held to be legally unsustainable and was set aside in toto. Issue 2: Alleged mala fides / civil nature of dispute and prayer for quashing proceedings Legal framework (as discussed) 2.9 The Court reiterated, with reference to the authorities cited under Issue 1 (particularly Sonu Gupta and Rakhi Mishra), that: (a) at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the court is only concerned with whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish a case; (b) the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings (including under Section 482 CrPC) is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances when no prima facie case is made out; and (c) defence contentions or disputes as to merits or the true character (civil/criminal) of the transaction are generally matters for trial, not for quashing at the threshold, unless ex facie no offence is made out. Interpretation and reasoning 2.10 The appellants argued that: (i) the FIR was lodged nearly 26 years after the alleged marriage; (ii) the core dispute related to ownership and construction of a house on land claimed to have been purchased by the informant's father, which was essentially a civil dispute; (iii) a civil suit concerning the same property was already pending; and (iv) the criminal proceedings were instituted with mala fide intent as a means of harassment and 'arm-twisting'. 2.11 The Court noted that, despite these assertions, the appellants had not made any categorical averment that the investigation by the police had yielded no evidence whatsoever warranting cognizance against them. The only assertion was that the trial court had not recorded prima facie material, which the Court characterised as a 'too simplistic' argument that did not discharge the burden of specifically stating that no such material existed. 2.12 The State, by contrast, asserted that sufficient material had been unearthed in investigation to justify cognizance. The Court examined the chargesheet (filed in Hindi) on the record and noted that it explicitly recorded, on the basis of investigation, site inspection and statements of the complainant, that the allegations were found to be true against all the accused, including the appellants. 2.13 The Court emphasised that, at the stage of considering cognizance or a challenge thereto, the court's role in examining the police papers/case diary is limited to seeing whether material exists to indicate commission of the alleged offences; the court cannot test the veracity or sufficiency of that material, which is the function of the trial where both prosecution and defence may lead evidence to prove or disprove the allegations. 2.14 In light of the existence of a chargesheet asserting that allegations were found true against all accused, and absent any categorical plea or material from the appellants to show absolute absence of incriminating material, the Court found no basis to entertain the contention that the proceedings were wholly mala fide or purely civil in nature such that they must be quashed at this stage. 2.15 The Court also noted that before it the appellants had not pressed any prayer to quash the FIR itself and had confined their challenge to the High Court's remand direction; this further limited the scope for adjudicating on alleged mala fides in instituting the FIR. Conclusions on Issue 2 2.16 The Court declined to accept the argument that the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed on the ground of mala fides or that the matter was purely civil in nature, given the existence of a chargesheet finding allegations true against the accused and the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the cognizance stage. 2.17 The Court therefore refused to quash or interfere with the criminal proceedings and directed that the case proceed in accordance with law before the trial court. 2.18 At the same time, the Court expressly reserved to the appellants full liberty to urge all available contentions, including absence of material emerging from investigation, at the appropriate stage before the trial court (e.g., at framing of charge and on an application for discharge), clarifying that no opinion had been expressed on the merits of the case and that all rights in law and on facts remain open to both sides.