High Court Erred in Ordering Fresh Cognizance Inquiry; Supreme Court Restores Trial Court's Cognizance Order

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard an appeal against the Jharkhand High Court’s order which set aside an order of cognizance dated 13.06.2019 and remitted the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision. The contention before the Supreme Court related to whether the Additional Judicial Commissioner was required to record detailed reasons when taking cognizance and whether the FIR was mala fide or otherwise not maintainable.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Impugned Judgment of the High Court and held that the order taking cognizance by the Additional Judicial Commissioner was in accordance with law and did not require interference. The Court observed that a Magistrate or trial court, at the stage of taking cognizance, must apply its mind to the materials before it to form an opinion as to whether an offence is made out and identify persons who appeared to have committed the offence, but it was not required to record a detailed, speaking order at that stage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Coming to the first issue, we have 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.” The Court reiterated settled precedents that the process issued to the accused could not be quashed merely because the Magistrate had not passed a "speaking order" at the cognizance stage.

Background The dispute arose from an FIR dated 27.11.2016 arising out of Argora P.S. Case No.385/2016. The informant (Respondent No.2) alleged that she had married the deceased, Vishnu Sahu, in 1990 and had three children; she alleged subsequent harassment, eviction from a house constructed on land she said belonged to her and humiliation by Vishnu Sahu’s first wife (Appellant No.1) and their children. The FIR charged offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 420 IPC and Section 3(1)(iv)/(g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Anticipatory bail proceedings were initially directed to be kept in abeyance and later rejected on 20.01.2017. A chargesheet was filed on 30.04.2019 and the Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance on 13.06.2019.

The appellants moved the High Court by a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition which, while not quashing the FIR, set aside the cognizance order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on the ground that the trial court had not recorded prima facie material against them. The State and the informant opposed interference, asserting that the police investigation, site inspection and witness statements disclosed material warranting cognizance. The Supreme Court analysed the settled law including authorities such as Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and related decisions, and held that the High Court erred in substituting its discretion for that of the trial court at the cognizance stage. The Court declined to entertain the appellants’ broader plea to quash the FIR, noting no specific categorical averment that no material existed in the police papers to warrant cognizance.

The Supreme Court set aside the Impugned Judgment in toto, directed that the case shall proceed in accordance with law, and ordered the appellants to appear before the Additional Judicial Commissioner on the next date fixed. The appellants were granted liberty to press for discharge at the appropriate stage; the Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2551 OF 2024 (2025 INSC 560) Case Title: Pramila Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment text For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment text