Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 10.03.2010 and 10.01.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Case No.1065 of 2010, by which he has taken cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 397, 411 and 506 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance does not reflect any application of mind to the facts of the case and the material on record and cognizance has been taken in a mechanical manner.
He next submitted that before the Magistrate takes cognizance, it is imperative that he must take notice of the accusations and apply his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or information received from the source other than a police report as the case may be and the material filed therewith and it is only after he satisfied that the allegations, if proved would constitute an offence, he should take cognizance. In this case the Magistrate has taken cognizance without taking into considerations the aforementioned parameters.
In support of his contention learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, 2009 (64) ACC 774.
Per contra learned A.G.A. made his submissions in support of the impugned order.
I have carefully examined the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other materials brought on record.
After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh took cognizance of offences under Sections 397, 411 and 506 I.P.C. on 10.03.2010.
From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that before taking cognizance the learned Magistrate has neither taken into consideration the nature of accusations nor he has made any any effort to satisfy himself as from the materials collected during investigation and keeping in view the nature of the allegations made against the revisionist any offence under Sections 397, 411 and 506 I.P.C. was disclosed or not. By the impugned order he has taken cognizance in a very cursory and routine manner. While dealing with the identical issue the Apex Court in the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad (supra) has held hereunder:
15. Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.
Thus, in view of the above and the fact that the impugned order by which cognizance has been taken does not reflect any application of mind the same cannot be sustained. This revision is allowed. The order dated 10.03.2010 and 10.01.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Case No1065 of 2010 is set aside with the direction that the Magistrate shall pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Learned counsel for the revisionist undertakes to file a certified copy of this order before the Magistrate concerned within a month from today. In case he fails to do so, this revision shall stand dismissed automatically.
Order Date :- 17.2.2011 arun