No Need To Pass A Fully Reasoned Order If Cognizance Is Taken On A Police Report: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that if cognizance has been taken on a police report, then there is no need to pass a fully reasoned order if from the perusal of the cognizance order it appears that the court has applied its mind to the materials on record.

It may be noted that a Police Report means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section 173 (2) CrPC.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain also clarified that even if there is an irregularity in the cognizance order passed by the Court, then also, on that ground, the proceedings cannot be vitiated in view of Section 465 Cr.P.C.

It may be noted that Section 465 of CrPC states that no finding, sentence or order of a competent court shall be reversed on account of irregularity unless there is a failure of justice.

The case in brief

The Court was essentially dealing with a 482 CrPC plea filed to quash a charge sheet as well as cognizance/summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Etawah and the enitre proceedings of a case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC.

Before the Court, the petitioner's primary argument was that the cognizance order passed by the ACJM-IV, Etawah was bad, cryptic in nature, and passed on a printed proforma and that the same was passed without any application of mind. 

On the other hand, the State's counsel argued that since the instant case was a State case, therefore, there was no need to pass a detailed cognizance order and thus, the Court below had validly passed the same.

It was underscored before the Court that while passing the cognizance order, the court had perused the case diary and other documents and pieces of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, and thus, there was no illegality in the cognizance order.

Court's observations 

At the outset, relying upon the Apex Court's rulings in the cases of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 and Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. The State of Karnataka LL 2021 SC 691, the Court observed that since in the instant case, the cognizance was taken on a police report, therefore, there was no need for the Court below to pass a fully reasoned order.

"In the present case, cognizance order dated 20.03.2020 shows that while passing it, the court below perused the charge-sheet, case diary and other documents, which were collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and thereafter court was of the view that prima facie ground for taking cognizance is sufficient, therefore, it cannot be said that without perusing the materials on record, court below took the cognizance," the Court remarked. [emphasis supplied]

Further, the Court also noted that even if there had been an irregularity in the cognizance order, then also, on the basis of it, the proceedings couldn't have been quashed as, the Court added, "the order of taking cognizance are interlocutory in nature and as per Section 465 Cr.P.C. proceedings on the basis of that irregularity cannot be vitiated.

It may be noted that in Pradeep S. Wodeyar case (supra), the apex court had also observed that an irregularity in the order taking cognizance will not vitiate the proceedings in a criminal trial.

Lastly, perusing the charge sheet and other documents on record, the Court found that prima facie, offence under Section 323, 504, 506, and 308 IPC was made out against the applicants, therefore, it concluded that there was no illegality in the charge sheet filed against the applicants.

Case title - Om Prakash And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3041 of 2022]

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 331

Click Here To Read/Download Order