The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because judicial remand was earlier declined would not by itself preclude the Investigating Officer from conducting further investigation or prevent the court from independently considering the police report at the stage of taking cognizance.

A bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal challenging an order of the Special Judge, SCST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, taking cognizance and summoning the appellant in a case registered under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3(1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the SCST Act.

Before the High Court, the appellant (Adeem Ali) contended that the IO had no authority to add offences in respect of the case for which the concerned court had earlier declined judicial remand

It was submitted that the IO, by merely recording the statements of two witnesses, sought to circumvent the order refusing judicial remand and frustrate its effect.

It was further argued that the order taking cognizance was cryptic, nonsensical, and passed without due application of judicial mind.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that an order refusing judicial remand and an order taking cognizance operate at two distinct stages of criminal proceedings and serve different purposes

The Court observed

"An order refusing judicial remand is passed at a distinct stage of the criminal proceedings and serves a purpose entirely different from an order taking cognizance Such an order neither amounts to an adjudication upon the legality of the investigation nor operates as a judicial determination that the offences in question are not made out".

It further held

"It certainly does not curtail the statutory authority of the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation collect further material and submit an appropriate police report under the provisions of the BNSS 2023".

Consequently, the Court clarified that merely because judicial remand was earlier declined will not preclude the Investigating Officer from conducting further investigation or the trial court from independently considering the police report at the stage of taking cognizance.

The Court also explained the distinction between taking cognizance and issuing summons under the BNSS.

It observed that cognizance under Section 210 BNSS refers to the Magistrate's application of judicial mind to the material on record so as to take judicial notice of an offence whereas summoning under Section 227 BNSS is the subsequent and distinct step of compelling the accused's appearance in consequence of that cognizance

The bench added that although both orders are often passed together, they are conceptually distinct stages of the proceedings

"At the stage of taking cognizance the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation or adjudicate upon the probable defence of the accused. The jurisdiction is confined to examining whether the material prima facie discloses the commission of an offence and furnishes sufficient ground for proceeding", the Court explained

Examining the impugned order, Justice Ahmad found that the Special Judge had considered the police report and statements recorded during investigation before concluding that sufficient grounds existed to proceed against the appellant

The Court held that merely because the order is concise or does not contain an elaborate discussion of each piece of evidence cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that it has been passed without application of judicial mind

At the stage of taking cognizance a detailed evaluation of the evidence is neither contemplated nor permissible, the Court said

Therefore, finding no illegality in the order taking cognizance the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal at the admission stage

The Single Judge, however, clarified that its observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the trial court shall proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in the order

Case title - Adeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459

Click Here To Read/Download Order