The Supreme Court has held that a Magistrate’s order taking cognizance of an offence cannot be invalidated merely for lack of detailed reasoning, so long as the order reflects application of mind to the case records and discloses a prima facie case. Setting aside a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court that had remanded a case under the SC/ST Act back to the trial court, the Apex Court ruled that the cognizance order dated 13.06.2019 was legally sound.
Background
The case arose from a dispute between Jyoti Beck (Respondent No.2), who claimed to be the second wife of one Vishnu Sahu (since deceased), and Pramila Devi (Appellant No.1), the first wife of Sahu, along with her two children. Beck alleged that Sahu misrepresented himself as unmarried and married her in 1990. She claimed they had three children and lived together for 26 years before being evicted from a house built on land allegedly purchased in her name.
Following a complaint, FIR No. 385 of 2016 was registered under Sections 498A, 406, 420 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(iv) of the SC/ST Act. After investigation, the police filed Chargesheet No. 80/2019. The Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance of the case on 13.06.2019.
Proceedings Before the High Court and Supreme Court
The appellants approached the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 235 of 2017, initially seeking quashing of the FIR. This was later amended to challenge the order taking cognizance. The High Court, by judgment dated 09.03.2022, set aside the cognizance order on the ground that it did not disclose the prima facie material and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged only the remand order and not the FIR itself. They argued that the High Court should have quashed the proceedings altogether and that no prima facie material existed.
Supreme Court’s Findings
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed that the High Court erred in setting aside the cognizance order. The Court held:
“Perusal of the Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019 discloses that the Additional Judicial Commissioner has stated that the ‘case diary and case record’ have been perused, which disclosed a prima facie case…”
Referring to precedent including Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, and Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B., (2000) 1 SCC 722, the Court reaffirmed:
“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…”
The judgment emphasized that the Magistrate’s role at the cognizance stage is not to evaluate the merits of the evidence but to see whether there is material suggesting commission of an offence. The veracity of such material, the Court clarified, is for trial:
“The concerned Court is not empowered to go into the veracity of the material at that time. That is why, the law provides for a trial…”
The Court also noted that the chargesheet on record mentioned findings that supported the allegations against the appellants and that the appellants had failed to assert categorically that no material was found during investigation.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s remand order in its entirety. It directed the appellants to appear before the Additional Judicial Commissioner where the trial would proceed in accordance with law. It clarified that all legal and factual contentions are left open to be raised by the parties at the appropriate stage, including framing of charge and discharge.
Citation: Pramila Devi & Ors. vs State of Jharkhand & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2551 of 2024
