Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, Roshan Lal Alias v. State of U.P. and Another gained attention due to the Allahabad High Court's decision to set aside a summoning order issued by a magistrate in Azamgarh.

• The High Court found that the magistrate had mechanically used a pre-printed proforma, failing to apply judicial mind while issuing the order.

What was the Background of Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar and Others v. State of U.P. and

Another?

• A criminal case was initiated against Roshan Lal before the Additional Civil Judge (Judicial Division) / Judicial Magistrate in Azamgarh.
• In July 2022, the Magistrate issued a cognizance and summoning order in this case.
• Roshan Lal filed a plea challenging the cognizance and summoning order from July 2022 and the ongoing proceedings in the criminal case.
• He claimed to have been falsely implicated in the criminal case and He alleged that the opposite party filed the case to harass him and exert undue pressure.
• Roshan Lal argued that the dispute between them was purely civil in nature, not criminal.
• The Court reviewed the challenged order issued by the Magistrate.
• It was observed that the Magistrate had used a printed proforma for the order. And the Magistrate had placed his abbreviated signature above the court's seal on this proforma.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court set aside the cognizance and summoning order issued by the Magistrate court in Azamgarh in the case under Sections 434 (mischief) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court stated that while passing any judicial order, including an order taking cognizance of a chargesheet, the concerned court is obligated to apply judicial mind. The order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.
• The Court found the impugned summoning/cognizance order dated 25th July 2022 to be legally unsustainable. The order, prepared by filling blanks on a printed proforma in a mechanical manner, demonstrated a clear non-application of judicial mind, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice.
• The Court noted that the learned Magistrate merely filled in specific details such as the case number, name of the accused, relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, name of the police station, date of order issuance, and the next scheduled date. This action was deemed insufficient to constitute a proper application of judicial mind.
• The Court observed that the impugned cognizance and summoning order did not reflect any consideration by the learned Magistrate regarding the sufficiency of material on record to proceed against the accused-applicant before taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 434 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The Court, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and secure the ends of justice, found it necessary to entertain the present Application in the exercise of its power under Section 482 of CrPC.

What is Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)?

• Section 210 of BNSS deals with the power of the magistrate to take cognizance of an offence earlier it was given under Section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)
• This Section deals with the cognizance of offences by magistrates. It states that
  • Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-
    • upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence
    • upon a police report of such facts
    • upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or
    • upon his own knowledge, that such an offence has been committed.
• The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
• If a magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under Section 190(1) (a) or (b) and if the magistrate was not empowered by the law to take cognizance based on the lack of jurisdiction, then the proceedings conducted by him in furtherance of taking of cognizance will not be set aside as long as it is known that the cognizance was taken in good faith.
• The accused's presence is not required for taking cognizance under this section.
• A magistrate can also order the investigation of cognizable offences under the power given to him by Section 210 of BNSS.

Case Law

• The State of West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee (1950) - In this case, the Calcutta High Court discussed the scope of the words taking cognizance and stated that this term is not defined anywhere in CrPC but keeping in mind the circumstances of the case, it can be said that a magistrate is said to have taken cognizance when he applies his judicial mind in a case.