Karuna Karan D v. State of Karnataka - Criminal Petition

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |
| Negatively Viewed by Court | No clear sentiment |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 47, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Sri. Karuna Karan D vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14168
CRL.P No. 2124 of 2026

                   HC-KAR

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                       CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2124 OF 2026 (482([Cr.PC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/)) /
                                         528(BNSS))
                  BETWEEN:

                  1.    SRI. KARUNA KARAN D
                        S/O LATE. DORESWAMY
                        AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
                        R/AT NO.55, 13TH MAIN
                        JC NAGARA, KURUBARAHALLI
                        BENGALURU CITY
                        BENGALURU-560086.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                  (BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
                  AND:

                  1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        REP BY ITS STATION OFFICER
                        CHAMARAJAPET POLICE STATION

Digitally signed by REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SANJEEVINI J OFFICE AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARISHETTY
BENGALURU-560001.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
2. SRI.M.S UMESH
S/O M.SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O ASSISTANT ENGINEER
BBMP, CIVIL DEPARTMENT
CHAMARAJPETE SUB-DIVISION
JC ROAD, BENGALURU-560002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14168
CRL.P No. 2124 of 2026

HC-KAR

    THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY

THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.17925/2019 ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.165/2017, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 336 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE 24th ACMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA
ROAD, BENGALURU CITY.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                      ORAL ORDER The petitioner - accused No.4 is before this Court calling

in question the proceedings in C.C.No.17925 of 2019 for the

offence punishable under Section 336 read with Section 34 of

the IPC.

1. Heard Sri. G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel

appearing for petitioner, Sri. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.

Santosh Kumar M.B., learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2.

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

1. Fact, in brief, germane are as follows:

3.1. A crime in Crime No.0165 of 2017 comes to be

registered for the offence punishable under Section 336 read

with Section 34 of the IPC against three accused persons. The

police after investigation file a charge sheet before the

concerned Court. In the charge sheet the petitioner is added as

accused No.4. On the basis of the charge sheet the concerned

Court takes cognizance of the aforesaid offences only against

the accused No.2 and the petitioner - accused No.4 and

summons is issued to the two accused persons. However,

accused Nos.1 and 3 are dropped from the charge sheet.
Subsequently, a case comes to be registered before the

concerned Court in C.C.No.17925 of 2019. The petitioner is now

knocking at the doors of this Court challenging the said

proceedings before the concerned Court.

1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the order of the concerned Court taking cognizance

of the offences and issuing summons to the petitioner suffers

from blatant non-application of mind and is bereft of any

reasons. The ingredients of the aforesaid offences have not

                                              NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

been made out in the case at hand. He would contend that if

the order of cognizance suffers from the vice of non-application

of mind, the only consequence would be obliteration of the said

order including the crime so registered as the cognizance is

taken upon the charge sheet or final report which is filed after

the registration of the crime.

1. The learned Counsels appearing for the respondents

would in unison submit that the order of taking cognizance and

issuing summons upon a final report need not bear application

of mind as it would become a matter of trial, where the

petitioner would get all opportunity of defence. On this score

they would seek dismissal of the petition and continuation of

trial against the petitioner.

1. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

1. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The only

issue that is projected before this Court lies in a narrow

compass, as to whether the order of cognizance suffers from

want of application of mind.

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

1. Since the entire issue emanates from the order taking

cognizance, I deem it appropriate to notice the said order. The

order dated 01-08-2019 reads as follows:

"Charge Sheet submitted by PSI/PI of Chamrajpet
PS in Cr.No.165/17 for the offences U/s.336, R/w. 34 IPC.

Accused no.1 & 3 are dropped from
chargesheet and A2 is not arrested and A4 is
released on personal bond.

Original FIR/complaint enclosed. Charge Sheet and
connected papers are checked, copies of charge sheet
here with enclosed. Prays for an order to take the
cognizance for the above offence against the accused.

For orders.

Perused the Charge sheet, acting U/s.
190(a)(1) Cognizance of Cr.P.C. for the offences
Punishable U/s. 336, R/w. 34 IPC is taken against
the A2&4.

Register the criminal case in Register No.III.
Isuse SS to A2&4 by 17.09.2019".
(Emphasis added)

The concerned Court upon filing of the charge sheet, without

recording any reasons or applying its mind takes cognizance of

the aforesaid offences and directs issuance of summons to the

accused persons. A serious matter of issuance of summons

appears to be a frolicsome act on the part of the concerned

Court.

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

1. This Court following the judgments of the Apex Court

has time and again directed that the trial Courts should not by

perfunctory orders take cognizance and issue summons, as

issuance of summons is undoubtedly a serious matter. This

Court in the case of [ARJUN ANJANEYA REDDY v. STATE OF

KARNATAKA1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158618818/), observes as follows:

"4. After dismissal of the aforesaid petition, the Police
conduct investigation and file a final report/charge sheet
before the concerned Court. The concerned Court, on the
final report filed by the jurisdictional Police, takes
cognizance of the offence. Taking cognizance of the
offence has driven these petitioners to this Court yet
again in the subject petition.

1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
   petitioners Sri. C.V. Nagesh would, for the present,
   restrict his submissions to the order of taking
   cognizance. It is his contention that the order of taking
   cognizance runs contrary to the provisions of law and
   contrary to several judgments of the Apex Court, as it
   does not bear application of judicial mind for taking
   cognizance and issuing summons. He would submit that
   if this Court considers this issue and leave all other
   issues open, it would suffice.

2. Per contra, the learned senior counsel, Sri.
   Sandesh J. Chouta representing the 2nd respondent
   would vehemently refute the submissions contending
   that the order of taking cognizance on a report by the
   Police i.e., the charge sheet need not bear application of
   mind. Application of mind would be required only if the
   concerned Court is taking cognizance on a complaint
   before it, as there would be no investigation in those
   cases.

2024 SCC OnLine Kar 15156

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

1. Both the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
   and the 2nd respondent have relied on several judgments
   of the Apex Court and that of this Court, all of which
   would bear consideration qua their relevance.

2. I have given my anxious consideration to the
   submissions made by the respective learned senior
   counsel and have perused the material on record.

3. The facts obtaining in the case at hand are
   narrated hereinabove. It would not require any
   reiteration for the issue that is now projected
   before this Court. The issue is whether the order of
   taking cognizance and issuance of summons
   require application of mind at the hands of the
   learned Magistrate, and whether the order
   impugned does bear application of mind.

4. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to consider
   the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel
   for the 2nd respondent. They, along with the paragraphs
   cited therein, read as follows:

10(a). JAGDISH RAM v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN, (2004) 4 SCC 432, paragraph-10:
"10. The contention urged is that though the trial
court was directed to consider the entire material on
record including the final report before deciding whether
the process should be issued against the appellant or
not, yet the entire material was not considered. From
perusal of order passed by the Magistrate it cannot be
said that the entire material was not taken into
consideration. The order passed by the Magistrate taking
cognizance is a well-written order. The order not only
refers to the statements recorded by the police during
investigation which led to the filing of final report by the
police and the statements of witnesses recorded by the
Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code but
also sets out with clarity the principles required to be
kept in mind at the stage of taking cognizance and
reaching a prima facie view. At this stage, the Magistrate
had only to decide whether sufficient ground exists or
not for further proceeding in the matter. It is well settled

                                                 NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

     that notwithstanding the opinion of the police, a
     Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance if the
     material on record makes out a case for the said
     purpose. The investigation is the exclusive domain of the
     police. The taking of cognizance of the offence is an
     area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied
     whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
     and not whether there is sufficient ground for
     conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for
     supporting the conviction, can be determined only
     at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the
     stage of issuing the process to the accused, the
     Magistrate is not required to record reasons. ([Dy.
     Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal
     Agarwal](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/716370/), [(2003) 4 SCC 139 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 788].)"

(Emphasis supplied)

10(b). BHUSHAN KUMAR v. STATE OF DELHI, (2012)
5 SCC 424 - paras 11, 18 & 19:
"11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon
International Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Cri) 471 the expression
"cognizance" was explained by this Court as "it merely
means 'become aware of' and when used with reference
to a court or a Judge, it connotes 'to take notice of
judicially'. It indicates the point when a court or a
Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view
to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said
to have been committed by someone." It is entirely a
different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is
the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings
by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of
cases and not of persons. Under Section 190 of the
Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the
averments in the complaint that constitutes
cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be
satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding and not whether there is sufficient
ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is
adequate for supporting the conviction can be
determined only at the trial and not at the stage of
enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then
the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process
under Section 204 of the Code.

.........

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

1. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Bhupendra
   Kumar Modi, [(2009) 2 SCC 147 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri)
   679] this Court, in para 23, held as under: (SCC p. 154)
   "23. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of
   issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with
   the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led
   in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie
   satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for
   proceeding against the accused."

2. This being the settled legal position, the
   order passed by the Magistrate could not be
   faulted with only on the ground that the
   summoning order was not a reasoned order."

(Emphasis supplied)

    10(c). [STATE OF GUJARAT v. AFROZ MOHAMMED
 HASANFATTA](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124040930/), (2019) 20 SCC 539 - paras 16, 21, 22,
 23, 24, 39:

"16. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing
process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the
allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in
support of the same and the Magistrate is only to be
satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused. It is fairly well settled that
when issuing summons, the Magistrate need not
explicitly state the reasons for his satisfaction that
there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against
the accused. Reliance was placed upon [Bhushan
Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) Bhushan Kumar v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri)
872] wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 428-29,
paras 11-13)
"11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon
International Ltd. Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon
International Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Cri) 471 the expression
"cognizance" was explained by this Court as "it merely
means 'become aware of' and when used with reference
to a court or a Judge, it connotes 'to take notice of
judicially'. It indicates the point when a court or a
Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view
to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to
have been committed by someone.' It is entirely a
different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is
the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings
by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of
cases and not of persons. Under Section 190 of the
Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the

• 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

       averments in the complaint that constitutes
       cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be
       satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for
       proceeding and not whether there is sufficient
       ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is
       adequate for supporting the conviction can be
       determined only at the trial and not at the stage of
       enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding
       then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of
       process under [Section 204](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1905618/) of the Code.

1. A "summons" is a process issued by a court
   calling upon a person to appear before a Magistrate. It is
   used for the purpose of notifying an individual of his legal
   obligation to appear before the Magistrate as a response
   to violation of law. In other words, the summons will
   announce to the person to whom it is directed that a
   legal proceeding has been started against that person
   and the date and time on which the person must appear
   in court. A person who is summoned is legally bound to
   appear before the court on the given date and time.
   Wilful disobedience is liable to be punished under Section 174 IPC. It is a ground for contempt of court.

2. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate
   the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for
   issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the
   opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an
   offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding,
   then the summons may be issued. This section
   mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to
   whether there exists a sufficient ground for
   summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned
   in the section that the explicit narration of the
   same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not
   a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the
   summons issued."

(emphasis supplied)
... ... ....

1. In para 21 of [Mehmood Ul Rehman Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124], this Court has made a fine distinction between taking cognizance based upon charge-sheet filed by the police under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and a private complaint under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC and held as under: (SCC p. 430) "21. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that "a complaint of facts which constitute such offence". Therefore, if the

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

     complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the
     commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not
     take cognizance under [Section 190(1)(a)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/545340/) CrPC. The
     complaint is simply to be rejected."

1. In summoning the accused, it is not
   necessary for the Magistrate to examine the merits
   and demerits of the case and whether the materials
   collected is adequate for supporting the conviction.
   The court is not required to evaluate the evidence
   and its merits. The standard to be adopted for
   summoning the accused under Section 204 CrPC is
   not the same at the time of framing the charge. For
   issuance of summons under Section 204 CrPC, the
   expression used is "there is sufficient ground for
   proceeding..."; whereas for framing the charges,
   the expression used in Sections 240 and 246 IPC is
   "there is ground for presuming that the accused
   has committed an offence...". At the stage of taking
   cognizance of the offence based upon a police
   report and for issuance of summons under Section 204 CrPC, detailed enquiry regarding the
   merits and demerits of the case is not required.
   The fact that after investigation of the case, the
   police has filed charge-sheet along with the
   materials thereon may be considered as sufficient
   ground for proceeding for issuance of summons
   under Section 204 CrPC.

2. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the
   police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the
   advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of
   witnesses and other evidence collected by the
   police during the investigation. Investigating
   officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during
   the investigation conducted in compliance with the
   provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in
   accordance with the rules of investigation.
   Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at
   the level of the investigating officer and thereafter,
   charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases,
   opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained
   before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has
   the advantage of the police report along with the
   materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has
   taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report
   and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is
   sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate
   directs issuance of process. In case of taking
   cognizance of an offence based upon the police
   report, the Magistrate is not required to record
   reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted
   on a police report, the Magistrate is only required
   to pass an order issuing summons to the accused.
   Such an order of issuing summons to the accused
   is based upon subject to satisfaction of the

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

       Magistrate considering the police report and other
       documents and satisfying himself that there is
       sufficient ground for proceeding against the
       accused. In a case based upon the police report, at
       the stage of issuing the summons to the accused,
       the Magistrate is not required to record any reason.
       In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or
       where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the
       charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then
       the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for
       rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it
       on file.

1. In the present case, cognizance of the offence
   has been taken by taking into consideration the charge-
   sheet filed by the police for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC,
   the order for issuance of process without explicitly
   recording reasons for its satisfaction for issue of process
   does not suffer from any illegality.
   .........

2. For issuance of process against the
   accused, it has to be seen only whether there is
   sufficient ground for proceeding against the
   accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the
   court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value
   of the materials on record. The court must apply its
   mind to the allegations in the charge-sheet and the
   evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is
   sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
   The court is not to examine the merits and
   demerits of the case and not to determine the
   adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused
   guilty. The court is also not required to embark
   upon the possible defences. Likewise, "possible
   defences" need not be taken into consideration at
   the time of issuing process unless there is an ex
   facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the
   accused is not liable. [Vide Nupur Talwar v. CBI
   [Nupur Talwar v. CBI, (2012) 11 SCC 465 : (2013) 1
   SCC (Cri) 689].]"

(Emphasis supplied)

10(d). S.C. JAYACHANDRA v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA - Criminal Revision Petition No. 1479 of
2019 decided on 18th May, 2020 - paras 12, 14, and 19:

"12. I have perused the aforesaid judgments. By
applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgments stated supra and on perusal of
the case on hand, the Trial Court while taking cognizance
and issuing process, has passed the following order:

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

"The Karnataka Lokayuktha City Division, Bengaluru,
have filed the charge sheet against the accused, that the
accused has made total assets of Rs. 2,27,13,936/-. And
his total expenditure is Rs. 1,71,95,040/-. The total of
assets and expenditure comes to Rs. 3,99,08,976/-. The
income of the accused and his family from all sources is
Rs. 2,02,50,007/-. The accused from 1.2.1985 to
18.12.2008 working as Chief Engineer of Hemavathi
Project, Goruru, Hassan, as on 18.12.2008, has made
disproportionate assets of total Rs. 1,96,58,969/- i.e.
97.08%, and committed offence punishable
u/s 13(1)(e) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.

1. The prosecution has produced the fresh Sanction
   dated 20.03.2019, authorization dated 17.12.2008,
   F.I.R., Source Report, P.F., Panchanama dated
   23.12.2008, Panchanama dated 18.12.2008, property
   documents, Panchanama dated 18.12.2008 and other
   documents.

2. Perused the documents.

3. Found prima facie case, Cognizance is taken.
   Register the case as Special Case, and issue summons to
   accused returnable by: 27.05.2019."

4. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the
   Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest dictum stated supra,
   here in this case, the Lokayuktha Police filed the charge
   sheet and the Trial Court while taking cognizance
   need not pass detailed order and hence, issuing
   process under Section 204 of Cr. P.C. by taking
   cognizance under Section 190(a)(b) of Cr.
   P.C. would attract. Therefore, there is no illegality
   committed by the Trial Court while issuing process
   against the petitioner and it cannot be said that
   there is no application of mind by the Trial Court.
   Even otherwise, the Trial Court considered the
   documents and proceeded to issue process after
   satisfaction of the same Judge who passed the
   order of discharge on the earlier
   occasion. Therefore, the arguments of learned Senior
   Counsel Sri. C.V. Nagesh cannot be accepted.
   Accordingly, I answer the Point No. 1 in favour of
   Lokayuktha Police and against the accused.

1. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial against the accused and dispose of the matter in accordance with law."

(Emphasis supplied)

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

    10(e). [PRADEEP   S.   WODEYAR v. STATE       OF
 KARNATAKA](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71518761/), (2021) 19 SCC 62 - paras 76, 85, 86, 87,
 88, 91, 108.8:

"C.5. Cognizance order and non-application of
mind

1. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of the Special Judge taking cognizance has not sufficiently demonstrated application of mind to the material placed before him. To substantiate this contention, the appellant relied on the decisions in [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400], Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478], Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124], Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI [Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687] and Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. [Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 430] The respondent argued that this Court has made a distinction on application of mind by the Judge for the purpose of taking cognizance based on a police report on the one hand and a private complaint under Section 200CrPC on the other, and that the requirement of a demonstrable application of mind in the latter case is higher. For this purpose, the counsel relied on this Court's decisions in [Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 872] and State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876].

... ... ....

1. Moreover, Kurian Joseph, J. writing for the two-Judge Bench has clearly taken note of the difference between Sections 190(1)(a) and 190(1)(b): (Mehmood Ul Rehman case [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124], SCC p. 430, para 21) "21. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, he has the

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

information or knowledge of commission of an
offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has
only a complaint before him. The Code hence
specifies that "a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence". Therefore, if the
complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the
commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not
take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. The
complaint is simply to be rejected."
86. In [Fakhruddin Ahmad Fakhruddin
Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC
157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478], a complaint was lodged
before the Judicial Magistrate alleging commission of
offences under Sections 240, 467, 468 and 471IPC. The
Magistrate directed the police to register the case and
investigate it. The Magistrate thus, instead of following
the procedure laid down under Section 200 or 202 CrPC,
ordered that the matter be investigated and a report be
submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code. Based on
the police report, cognizance was taken by the
Magistrate. A two-Judge Bench of this Court observed
that the Magistrate must apply his mind before taking
cognizance of the offence. However, no observation was
made that the cognizance order based on a police report
needs to be "well-reasoned". On the facts of the case,
the Court held that since the cognizance order was not
placed before the High Court, it did not have the
opportunity to review if the Magistrate had applied his
mind while taking cognizance. The matter was thus
remanded back to the High Court for it to peruse the
documents and then decide the Section 482 petition
afresh.

1. It must be noted that the decisions in [Pepsi Foods Ltd. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 [SCC (Cri) 1400] and Mehmood Ul Rehman Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] arose in the context of a private complaint. Though the decision in [Sunil Bharti Mittal Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687] arose from a police report, it is evident from the narration of facts in the earlier part of this judgment that in that case, the charge-sheet had not named the Chief Executive Officers of the Telecom Companies as accused. The Magistrate, however, furnished the reason that the CEO was an alter ego of the Telecom Company which, as this Court noted in its judgment was a "reverse application" of the alter ego doctrine.

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

1. Similarly, the cognizance order in [Fakhruddin Ahmad Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478] was based on a police report. However, this Court remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the validity of the cognizance order and did not review the Magistrate's satisfaction before issuing the cognizance order. Therefore, none of the above judgments referred to support the contention of the appellant. Though all the above judgments mention that the Magistrate needs to apply his mind to the materials placed before him before taking cognizance, they have been differentiated on facts from the present case as unlike the present case where cognizance was taken based on the SIT report, in those cases cognizance was taken based on a complaint. The difference in the standard of proof for application of mind with reference to cognizance based on a complaint and police report has been briefly discussed in [Mehmood Ul Rehman Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : ([2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] and Fakhruddin Ahmad Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478]. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876] laid down the law on the difference of the standard of review of the application of mind by the Judge while taking cognizance based on a police report and a private complaint.

.........

1. While distinguishing the decision in [Pepsi Foods Ltd. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] on the ground that it related to taking of cognizance in a complaint case, the Court in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta case [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876] held since in a case of cognizance based on a police report, the Magistrate has the advantage of perusing the materials, he is not required to record reasons: (Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta case [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876], SCC p. 552, para 23) "23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO

• 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

       collects   the    necessary    evidence    during     the
       investigation conducted in compliance with the
       provisions of the [Criminal Procedure Code](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/) and in
       accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence
       and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the
       investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was
       filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public
       Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-
       sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police
       report along with the materials placed before it by the
       police. Under [Section 190(1)(b)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/867855/) CrPC, where the
       Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a
       police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there
       is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate
       directs issuance of process. In case of taking
       cognizance of an offence based upon the police
       report, the Magistrate is not required to record
       reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on
       a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass
       an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an
       order of issuing summons to the accused is based
       upon satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the
       police report and other documents and satisfying
       himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
       against the accused. In a case based upon the police
       report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the
       accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any
       reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law
       or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the
       charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the
       Magistrate is required to record his reasons for
       rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on
       file."

(emphasis supplied)
.........

108.8. Since cognizance was taken by the Special
Judge based on a police report and not a private
complaint, it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to
issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that
the Special Judge has applied his mind to the material."

(Emphasis supplied)

    10(f). RATAN    BABULAL       LATH v. STATE      OF
 KARNATAKA - Criminal Petition No. 1367 of 2022 decided
 on 10th May, 2022:

"The Apex Court in terms of clause (viii) of the
aforesaid conclusions holds that since cognizance
is taken based on a police report and not a private
complaint, it is not obligatory for the Judge to

• 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

issue a completely reasoned order if it otherwise
appears that the Judge has applied his mind to the
material"
(Emphasis supplied)

    10(g) S.L. HALESHAPPA v. STATE BY LOKAYUKTA
 POLICE STATION - Criminal Petition No. 10263 of 2021
 decided on 25th May, 2022:

"The three judge of the Apex Court while
considering the entire spectrum of law with regard
to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the
accused, has held that the order taking cognizance
need not be elaborate or in the nature of a mini
trial but nonetheless should bear application of
mind ......"
...... The order taking cognizance and issuing
summons reads as follows:

"Perused the charge sheet. Cognizance taken against
accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 13(1)(e) r/w
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Register the case and issue summons to accused."
(Emphasis supplied)

     The learned senior counsel Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta to
 buttress his submissions on the issue whether the order
 of the concerned Court should bear application of mind
 when it takes cognizance and issues summons, has
 relied on the aforesaid judgments.

1. The Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH RAM supra holds that the Magistrate is not expected to consider the entire material while taking cognizance; it should be a well written order and bear application of mind. The Magistrate is not required to advert to whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. In the case of BHUSHAN KUMAR supra, the Apex Court again reiterates that if cognizance is taken under Section 190 of the Code, application of judicial mind to the averments of the complaint is necessary. The Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding in the matter and not whether sufficient ground for conviction. In the case

• 19 -

NC: 2026: [KHC:14168

HC-KAR

 of AFROZ MOHAMMED HASANFATTA](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124040930/) supra, the
 Apex Court holds that it is not necessary to pass a
 detailed order when the Magistrate or the
 concerned Court has taken cognizance on a final
 report. The same goes with the order of the Co-

ordinate Bench in the case of S.C.
JAYACHANDRA supra. The Apex Court in the case
of PRADEEP S. WODEYAR at para 108.8 (supra)
holds that the Court is not obliged to pass a fully
reasoned order, if it otherwise appears that the
Special Judge has applied his mind. This Court
in RATAN BABULAL LATH's case considers all these
judgments and holds that the order of taking
cognizance did bear application of mind. The
aforesaid are the judgments relied on by the
learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent.

1. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SACHIN GARG v. STATE OF U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82, wherein it is held as follows:

"20. While it is true that at the stage of issuing
summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied
with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the
duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding,
as has been held in the case of Jagdish Ram (supra). The same proposition of law has been laid down in the
case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate, [(1998) 5 SCC 749]. The learned
Magistrate's order issuing summons records the
background of the case in rather longish detail but
reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner. At the stage
of issue of summons, detailed reasoning as to why a
Magistrate is issuing summons, however, is not
necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied that the
allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to
the offences for which the appellant has been
summoned for trial. A commercial dispute, which ought
to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court
has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal
code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a
criminal complaint. The learned Magistrate here failed to
apply his mind in issuing summons and the High Court
also failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the 1973 Code to prevent abuse of the power of the
Criminal Court."
- 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

                                              (Emphasis supplied)

     The Apex Court has held that while it is true
 that at the stage of issuing summons, the
 Magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima
 facie case for taking cognizance, the duty is to
 record that there is sufficient ground. The Apex
 Court observes that learned Magistrate's order
 issuing summons records the background of the
 case in rather longish detail, but reflects his
 satisfaction in a cryptic manner. Therefore, the
 Apex Court was holding that satisfaction of the
 Magistrate to issue summons was imperative.
 Satisfaction is discernible only if the order would
 bear application of mind. The Apex Court again in the
 case     of [SHARIF   AHMED v. STATE     OF    UTTAR
 PRADESH](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1845674/), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726, has held as
 follows:

"6. We would like to elaborate on certain
aspects, as submission of the chargesheet is for
taking cognisance and summoning of the accused
by the Magistrate, which stages are of
considerable importance and significance.
... .... ....

1. In the context of the present issue, it would be apt to refer to Section 190 and Section 204 of the Code, along with the provisions relating to contents of charge, namely, Sections 211 to 213 and Section 218 of the Code, which read as under:

"190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.--
(1) 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--

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other
than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge,
that such offence has been committed.
(2) 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.
xxxxxx

• 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

1. Issue of process.--(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be--

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for
the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he
thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to
be brought or to appear at a certain time before
such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction
himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against
the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the
prosecution witnesses has been filed.
(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint
made in writing, every summons or warrant issued
under sub-section
(1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such
complaint.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any
process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall
be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are
not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may
dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect
the provisions of Section 87.

xxxxxx

1. Contents of charge.--(1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.

(2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any
specific name, the offence may be described in the
charge by that name only.

(3) If the law which creates the offence does not
give it any specific name, so much of the definition of
the offence must be stated as to give the accused
notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(4) The law and section of the law against which
the offence is said to have been committed shall be
mentioned in the charge.

(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent
to a statement that every legal condition required by
law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the
particular case.

(6) The charge shall be written in the language of
the Court.

(7) If the accused, having been previously
convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such
previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to
punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent
offence, and it is intended to prove such previous

• 22 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

        conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment
        which the Court may think fit to award for the
        subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the
        previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if
        such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it
        at any time before sentence is passed.

1. Particulars as to time, place and person.--(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.

(2) When the accused is charged with criminal
breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money
or other movable property, it shall be sufficient to
specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describe
the movable property in respect of which the offence is
alleged to have been committed, and the dates
between which the offence is alleged to have been
committed, without specifying particular items or exact
dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be
a charge of one offence within the meaning of Section
219:

Provided that the time included between the first
and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.
213. When manner of committing offence
must be stated.--When the nature of the case is such
that the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212
do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter
with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain
such particulars of the manner in which the alleged
offence was committed as will be sufficient for that
purpose.

xxxxxx

1. Separate charges for distinct offences.-- (1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately:

Provided that where the accused person, by an
application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is
of opinion that such person is not likely to be
prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all
or any number of the charges framed against such
person.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the
operation of the provisions of Sections 219, 220, 221
and 223.
15. On the submission of the police report, Dablu
Kujur (supra) refers to an earlier decision of this Court
in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police10, and
discusses the power and the role of the Magistrate when

• 23 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

     he receives the police report and the options available
     to him, in the following words:

"14. When such a Police Report concludes that an
offence appears to have been committed by a particular
person or persons, the Magistrate has three
options: (i) he may accept the report and take
cognizance of the offence and issue process, (ii) he
may direct further investigation under subsection (3) of
Section 156 and require the police to make a further
report, or (iii) he may disagree with the report and
discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. If such
Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have
been committed, the Magistrate again has three
options: (i) he may accept the report and drop the
proceedings, or (ii) he may disagree with the report
and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and
issue process, or (iii) he may direct further
investigation to be made by the police under sub-
section (3) of Section 156."
It is in this context that the provisions of Sections
190 and 204 of the Code become important. Clause (a)
of Section 190 states that the Magistrate can take
cognisance of an offence on receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence. Clause (b) relates to
a situation where the Magistrate receives a police report
carrying such facts, i.e., facts which constitute such
offence. In Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar11 this Court
referred to the options available to the Magistrate on
how to proceed in terms of Section 190(1)(b) of the
Code, and held:

"11... The position is, therefore, now well
settled that upon receipt of a police report under
Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take
cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b)
of the Code even if the police report is to the
effect that no case is made out against the
accused. The Magistrate can take into account the
statements of the witnesses examined by the
police during the investigation and take
cognizance of the offence complained of and
order the issue of process to the accused. Section
190(1)(b) does not lay down that a Magistrate
can take cognizance of an offence only if the
investigating officer gives an opinion that the
investigation has made out a case against the
accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion
arrived at by the investigating officer and
independently apply his mind to the facts
emerging from the investigation and take
cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise
his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct
the issue of process to the accused. The

• 24 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to
follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200
and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a
case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to
him to act under Section 200 or Section 202
also. (See India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka, [(1989) 2 SCC 132 : 1989 SCC (Cri)
306 : AIR 1989 SC 885].)

1. The informant is not prejudicially affected when
   the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to
   proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate
   decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for
   proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes
   the view that there is material for proceeding against
   some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of
   others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as
   the first information report lodged becomes wholly or
   partially ineffective. This Court in Bhagwant
   Singh v. Commr. of Police held that where the
   Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to drop
   the proceeding or takes a view that there is no
   sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the
   persons mentioned in the first information report,
   notice to the informant and grant of opportunity of
   being heard in the matter becomes mandatory. As
   indicated above, there is no provision in the Code for
   issue of a notice in that regard.

2. We may add here that the expressions "charge-
   sheet" or "final report" are not used in the Code, but it
   is understood in Police Manuals of several States
   containing the rules and the regulations to be a report
   by the police filed under Section 170 of the Code,
   described as a "charge-sheet". In case of reports sent
   under Section 169 i.e. where there is no sufficiency of
   evidence to justify forwarding of a case to a Magistrate,
   it is termed variously i.e. referred charge, final report
   or summary. Section 173 in terms does not refer to any
   notice to be given to raise any protest to the report
   submitted by the police. Though the notice issued
   under some of the Police Manuals states it to be a
   notice under Section 173 of the Code, there is nothing
   in Section 173 specifically providing for such a notice."
   (Emphasis supplied)

    The Apex Court holds that application of mind is
 imperative, if taking of cognizance and issuing of
 process is an action that the concerned Court
 would take. The Apex Court considers earlier
 judgments of the Court, all of which are relied on
 by    the  learned     senior    counsel    for  the
 2nd respondent. In the later judgment, the Apex Court
 in the case of [VIKAS CHANDRA v. STATE OF UTTAR](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107307216/)

• 25 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

 PRADESH, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534, has held as
 follows:

"14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the next
question to be considered is whether a summons issued
by a Magistrate can be interfered with in exercise of the
power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. In the decisions
in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pepsi
Foods Ltd.'s case (supra) this Court held that a petition
filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., for quashing an order
summoning the accused is maintainable. There cannot
be any doubt that once it is held that sine qua non for
exercise of the power to issue summons is the
subjective satisfaction "on the ground for proceeding
further" while exercising the power to consider the
legality of a summons issued by a Magistrate, certainly
it is the duty of the Court to look into the question as to
whether the learned Magistrate had applied his mind to
form an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground
for proceeding further and in that regard to issue
summons to face the trial for the offence concerned. In
this context, we think it appropriate to state that one
should understand that 'taking cognizance', empowered
under Section 190, Cr. P.C., and 'issuing process',
empowered under Section 204, Cr. P.C., are different
and distinct. (See the decision in Sunil Bharti
Mittal v. C.B.I.).

... ... ....

1. In the decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
   Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, this Court held that the settled
   position for summoning of an accused is that the
   Court has to see the prima facie evidence. This
   Court went on to hold that the 'prima facie
   evidence' means the evidence sufficient for
   summoning the accused and not the evidence
   sufficient to warrant conviction. The inquiry under
   Section 202, Cr. P.C., is limited only to ascertain
   whether on the material placed by the
   complainant a prima facie case was made out for
   summoning the accused or not.

2. In an earlier decision in Smt.
   Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, this
   Court laid down certain conditions whereunder a
   complaint can be quashed invoking the power under
   Section 482, Cr. P.C., thus:--

"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the
statements of the witnesses recorded in support of
the same taken at their face value make out
absolutely no case against the accused or the

• 26 - NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

        complaint    does  not   disclose  the    essential
        ingredients of an offence which is alleged against
        the accused;

(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are
patently absurd and inherently improbable so that
no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in
issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having
been based either on no evidence or on materials
which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal
defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a
complaint by legally competent authority and the
like."

.........

1. As per the impugned judgment the High Court went on to consider and held thus:--

"As per mandate of this Section, there must be
explicit or implicit abetment or some overt act
indicative or suggestive of fact that some instigation
was given for committing suicide and the applicant was
having an interest in it. Nothing has surfaced, which
may reflect on the mindset of the applicant that he ever
intended the consequence that the deceased would
commit suicide and with that view in mind, he stopped
payment of salary. Had it been the actual position then
obviously the suicide note must have whispered about
that particular aspect or it would have at least alluded
to that situation, but on careful perusal of the suicide
note it explicit that the deceased himself was bent upon
committing suicide in case the salary was not drawn in
his favour. But under circumstances, there is nothing to
suggest that the applicant was conscious of that
position and knowing the same situation he insisted
that he would not pay the salary in question. The trial
court, however, ignoring all these legal aspects took
cognizance of the offence by rejecting the final report
submitted by the Investigating Officer and issued
process against the applicant by way of summoning.
Resultantly, this application is allowed. Criminal
proceedings of impugned order dated 05.04.2012
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in
Criminal Case No. 1478 of 2012, Vikas v. Ram
Babu, Case Crime No. C-2 of 2005, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Alhaganj, District
Shahjahanpur by which the applicant has been
summoned to face the trial is hereby quashed."
.........

• 27 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

1. It is to be noted that apart from the above mentioned alleged incident, there is no allegation of continued course of conduct (against the respondent No. 2) creating circumstances compelling the victim to or leaving the victim with no other option but to, commit suicide. In this contextual situation from the decision of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)14, paragraphs 16 and 17 therein dealing with the expression 'instigation' are worthy for reference and they read thus:--

"16...instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the
requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by
his acts or omission or by a continued course of
conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no other option except to commit suicide,
in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred.
A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot
be said to be instigation."
"17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who
instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or
encourage the doing of an act by the other by
"goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning
of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone
into action; provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise
Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or
annoying somebody until he reacts..."

(emphasis in original)

1. In short, applying the principles of the decisions referred above to the facts of the case on hand would reveal that the impugned judgment of the High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity, illegality or perversity and the conclusions are arrived at after a rightful appreciation of the complaint and the other materials on record, within the permissible parameters."

(Emphasis supplied)

    Here again, the Apex Court considers entire
 spectrum of law and all the judgments that the
 learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent has
 placed reliance upon and would hold that
 application  of   judicial  mind    while  taking

• 28 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

 cognizance and issuing summons is imperative.
 The Apex Court was interpreting both cognizance
 under Section 190(1)(b) and issuance of process
 under Section 204 of the Cr. P.C. The said provisions
 read as follows:

"190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.--

(1) 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--

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute
such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other
than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge,
that such offence has been committed.
(2) 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.
... ... ....

1. Issue of process.--(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be--

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for
the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he
thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be
brought or to appear at a certain time before such
Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself)
some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against
the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the
prosecution witnesses has been filed.
(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint
made in writing, every summons or warrant issued
under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy
of such complaint.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any
process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall
be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are
not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may
dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect
the provisions of Section 87."

• 29 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

    Section 190(1)(a) deals with cognizance being
 taken on a complaint, which would be a private
 complaint presented before the concerned Court.
 Section 190(1)(b) deals with cognizance taken on
 a police report, which would be a final
 report/charge sheet filed before the concerned
 Court. Therefore, cognizance can be taken only
 under Section 190 of the Cr. P.C. Section 204 deals
 with issue of process.

1. After the concerned Court takes cognizance
   under Section 190 of the Cr. P.C., process is issued
   under Section 204 Cr. P.C. Sub-section (1) thereof
   mandates that if in the opinion of the Magistrate
   taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient
   ground for proceeding, it shall issue process.
   Therefore, the words 'there is sufficient
   ground' assume importance. The necessity of
   recording reasons for existence of sufficient
   ground is thus imperative, and those reasons are
   discernible only if they are recorded in writing. It
   is only then such orders would reflect application
   of mind, on the part of the Court, taking
   cognizance and issuing summons. Therefore, the
   judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel
   for the petitioners are all overwhelming, to the
   judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel
   for the 2nd respondent, as all the judgments that
   are quoted hereinabove, fallen from the arsenal of
   the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, are
   all of 2024 and consider the very issue as against
   the judgments, which are little earlier cited by the
   learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent and
   the law as laid down by the Apex Court is that
   order of taking cognizance and issuing summons,
   must bear application of mind.

2. With the law being thus, I now deem it
   appropriate to notice the order taking cognizance in the
   case at hand. It reads as follows:

"ORDER

• 30 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

Perused the charge sheet and all the documents
submitted along with the charge sheet by the
investigating agency.

On perusal of the same, this court is satisfied at this
stage that prima facie offence has been committed by
the accused as alleged.

The charge sheet and its enclosed papers satisfies
that there exists sufficient materials to proceed against
the accused.

Therefore, cognizance is taken under Section 190(1) of CrPC for the offence punishable under
Section 418, 420, 464, 465, 120B r/w 34 IPC against
the accused persons.

Office to register the case as Criminal Cases in
Register No. 3 against the accused for the offence
punishable under
Section 418, 420, 464, 465, 120B r/w 34 IPC and put
up.

Issue summons to accused by 11-07-2024."
The Court observes 'perused the charge sheet
and all the documents'. On perusal of the same,
the Court is satisfied that prima facie offence has
been committed by the accused as alleged.
Therefore, cognizance is taken under Section 190
(1)(b) and summons issued ostensibly under
Section 204 of the Cr. P.C. The order of taking
cognizance and issuing of process does not bear
even a semblance of application of mind. It runs
completely counter to the necessity under
Section 190(1)(b) or Section 204 of the Cr. P.C. as
elucidated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid
judgments.

1. The learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that in 80% of cases, the Courts would take cognizance in the same manner, while that would not impress this Court to dismiss the petition and permit perpetration of irregularity or illegality by the concerned Court, just because it has become a habit to take cognizance and issue summons in this manner. Not for nothing is the elucidation by the Apex Court in regard to existence of sufficient grounds and application of judicial mind. The Court is expected to record

• 31 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

 reasons for taking of cognizance. Though the
 reasons need not be so elaborate like when it
 records    framing of     charges   or    conviction,
 nonetheless, it must bear application of mind to
 set further proceedings into motion, as taking of
 cognizance or issuance of process has some
 judicial sanctity. It cannot be a frolicsome act on
 the part of the learned Magistrate/concerned
 Court, which would take cognizance and issue
 summons.

1. Therefore, it is made clear that the learned
   Magistrates/concerned Court who take cognizance
   and issue process, shall henceforth follow the law
   laid down by the Apex Court as quoted
   hereinabove and pass orders that would bear
   application of mind, failing which, the learned
   Magistrates/concerned Court are contributing
   docket explosion in this Court, as every order of
   taking cognizance and issuance of process is
   brought before this Court on the score that it does
   not bear application of mind. Wherefore, the
   impugned order of taking cognizance is necessarily
   to be obliterated and the matter remitted back to
   the hands of the learned Magistrate to redo the
   exercise bearing in mind the observations made
   hereinabove.

2. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is allowed-in-part.

(ii) The order taking cognizance dated 04-04-2024
passed in C.C. No. 2600 of 2024 by the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal stands quashed.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal to redo the
exercise of passing an order of taking cognizance
and issuing process, bearing in mind the
observations made in the course of the order.
- 32 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a
period of four weeks' from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.

(v) All other contentions except the one considered in
the course of the order shall remain open.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed."

(Emphasis supplied)

1. In light of the afore-quoted order of this Court and the

order of cognizance of the concerned Court bearing no reasons,

I deem it appropriate to set aside and remit the matter back to

the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders on

the cognizance or otherwise bearing in mind the observations

made in the course of the order. All contentions of both the

parties shall remain open before the concerned Court.

1. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

I. Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

II. The order dated 01-08-2019 passed in C.C.No.17925 of

2019 by the 24th Additional CMM Court, Nrupatunga

Road, Bengaluru City stands quashed.

• 33 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14168

HC-KAR

III. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the 24th

Additional CMM Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru

City to redo the exercise of passing an order of taking

cognizance and issuing process, bearing in mind the

observations made in the course of the order.

IV. All other contentions except the one considered in the

course of the order shall remain open.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

RJ /List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87