Magistrate's Cognizance Order Can't Be Faulted Only Because It Wasn't A Reasoned Order : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that a Magistrate's order taking cognizance of a police report cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order. If the cognizance is taken after recording a finding regarding the existence of a prima facie case based on a reading of the case records, explicit reasons are not required.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision which interfered with the trial court's cognizance order which was passed based on the prima facie materials against the accused, like case diary, etc, and was not a reasoned order.

“In the present case, we find that 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) 5 SCC 424, this Court held that an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order.”, the court observed.

“Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.”, the court observed in Bhushan Kumar.

Further, reference was also drawn to the cases of State of Gujarat v Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539, where it was held that the Magistrate is not required to record any reason at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused.

Applying the law to the present case, the Court observed:

“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.”

“For reasons aforesaid and on an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019, being in accordance with law, was not required to be interfered with by the High Court.”, the court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: PRAMILA DEVI & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 467

Click here to read/download the judgment