Taking Cognizance Is A Judicial Function, Orders Cannot Be Passed In A Mechanical Or Cryptic Manner: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that taking of cognizance is a judicial function and that the judicial orders cannot be passed in a mechanical or cryptic manner.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has added that at time of taking cognizance, a Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the proposed accused or to evaluate the merits of the material collected during investigatio or to pass a detail order giving detailed reasons while taking cognizance. The Court added that the order taking cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind.

"Cognizance implies application of judicial mind by the Magistrate to the facts as stated in a complaint or a police report or upon information received from any person that an offence has been committed. It is the stage when a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence," the Court observed.

It added that the cognizance of an offence is stated to be taken once the Magistrate applies his mind to the offence alleged and decides to initiate proceeding against the proposed accused.

It was also observed that the Court before taking cognizance needs to be satisfied about existence of prima facie case on basis of material collected after conclusion of investigation.

"The magistrate has to apply his mind to the facts stated in the police report or complaint before taking cognizance for coming to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to proceed with the case. Taking of cognizance is a judicial function and judicial orders cannot be passed in a mechanical or cryptic manner. It is not only against the settled judicial norms but also reflects lack of application of judicial mind to the facts of the case," the Court added.

The Court was dealing with a petition seeking quashing of the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby cognizance was taken in pursuance of charge sheet filed in an FIR registered under sec. 447, 506, 420 and 120B of IPC.

The counsel for the petitioner had argued that the impugned order was passed in a cryptic manner and without application of judicial mind. It was submitted that the judge also did not mention regarding which offences, the cognizance was taken by the Trial Court and that the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

The High Court thus concluded that the impugned order was cryptic, non-speaking and is passed without application of judicial mind, which was passed in casual and cursory manner.

The Bench noted that even the offences regarding which the cognizance was taken were not mentioned in the impugned order.

"Accordingly the impugned order dated 18.09.2018 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to re-consider the issue of taking the cognizance afresh and to pass the speaking order on the basis of charge sheet," the Court ordered.

The plea was accordingly disposed of.

Title: SANJIT BAKSHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 533

Click Here To Read Order