Fully Reasoned Order Not Necessary For Taking Cognizance On The Basis Of Police Report : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to issue a fully reasoned order for taking cognizance on the basis of a police report(Case : Pradeep S Wodeyar versus Union of India).

A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice BV Nagarathna was deciding an appeal filed against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed the appellant's petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him.

The appellant, a Managing Director of a company, was facing criminal trial for offences related to unauthorized mining under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and Indian Penal Code.

One of the argument raised by the appellant was that the order passed by the Special Judge under the MMDR Act to take cognizance was unsustainable in law as no reasons were recorded in it.  It was argued that the order of the Special Judge taking cognizance has not sufficiently demonstrated application of mind to the material placed before him. To substantiate this contention, the appellant relied on the decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 17 SCC 157, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609.

On the other hand, the State of Karnataka relied on the decision in State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanafatta which laid down that Magistrate is not bound to record reasons if cognizance is taken on the basis of a police report. It was argued that there are different yardsticks for taking cognizance on the basis of a private complaint and one a police report. While there is a requirement to record reasons in the former case, it is not a mandatory requirement in the latter case, argued the State.

The Supreme Court accepted the argument of the State. The Court noted that the most of the decision relied on by the appellant were cases arising out of private complaints. In Sunil Bharti Mittal, the Magistrate had issued summons to an accused who was not named in the charge-sheet. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate had to record reasons. However, in the instant case, the Special Judge took cognizance against the accused on the basis of a report filed by the Special Investigation Team.

"Though all the above judgments mention that the Magistrate needs to apply his mind to the materials placed before him before taking cognizance, they have been differentiated on facts from the present case as unlike the present case where cognizance was taken based on the SIT report, in those cases cognizance was taken based on a complaint", the Court observed.

The Court also referred to the decision in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta which held that since in a case of cognizance based on a police report, the Magistrate has the advantage of perusing the materials, he is not required to record reasons.

"The Special Judge, it must be noted, took cognizance on the basis of a report submitted under Section 173 CrPC and not on the basis of a private complaint. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (supra). The Special Judge took note of the FIR, the witness statements, and connected documents before taking cognizance of the offence. In this backdrop, it would be far-fetched to fault the order of the Special Judge on the ground that it does not adduce detailed reasons for taking cognizance or that it does not indicate that an application of mind. In the facts of this case, therefore, the order taking cognizance is not erroneous", the Court held in paragraph 75 of the judgment.

In conclusion, the Court stated :

"Since cognizance was taken by the Special Judge based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind to the material"

Also from the judgment :  Irregularity In Order Taking Cognizance Will Not Vitiate Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court