The principal issue which thus arises is with regard to the manner of taking cognizance and issuing process as per the procedure prescribed under the Code: High court of Allahabad
Petitioner seek a direction to the respondent to recall of witness power to be invoked to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons with cautions and circumspection, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge Hon’ble Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. In the matter, Badri Prasad And 3 Others the V/s State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 12578 of 2021] dealt with an issue mentioned above.
The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 20.11.2020 in Case Crime No. 402/2020 under Sections 324, 323 and 504 Indian Penal Code Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
In-State of WB Vs. Mohd. Khalid21, observing that the expression ‘taking cognizance has not been defined in the Code, it was held to mean taking notice of an offence, and to include the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings or for other purposes. It was also observed that the word ‘cognizance’ indicates the point when a Magistrate or a Judge first takes cognizance or judicial notice of an offence and it is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings. It was further stated that while taking cognizance of an offence the Court is not required to pass a reasoned order and it can take into consideration not only police reports but also on other materials on record.
The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case in the present case, it is not the contention on behalf of the applicant that the order of cognizance has been issued on a printed proforma and therefore the decision in the case of Ankit and Vineet Agarwal (supra) would be distinguishable on facts.
Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra