2008 (9) TMI 997 - SC - Indian Laws

Appellant seeking to quash the chargesheet - FIR lodged for commission of offences u/s 420 467 468 and 471 I.P.C. - Magistrate directed the police to register the case and investigate it - meanwhile the appellant filed a complaint against the complainant and his partner u/s 138 of the NI Act and Section 420 I.P.C - Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons against the complainant - Cognizance of a Magistrate - HELD THAT - The expression cognizance is not defined in the Code but is a word of indefinite import. As observed by this Court in Ajit Kumar Palit Vs. State of West Bengal 1962 (11) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT the word cognizance has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. It merely means--become aware of and when used with reference to a Court or Judge to take notice of judicially. In S.K. Sinha Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd. Ors. 2008 (1) TMI 618 - SUPREME COURT speaking through C.K. Thakker J. while considering the ambit and scope of the phrase taking cognizance u/s 190 of the Code has highlighted some of the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Superintendent Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs. Abani Kumar Banerjee 1950 (5) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT which were approved by this Court in R. R. Chari Vs. State of U.P. 1951 (3) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT . It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order the High Court has itself observed that no material had been placed before it which in fact led the learned Judge to assume that the prosecution has produced evidence in support of the complaint. It is thus manifest that in the absence of material stated to have been filed alongwith the chargesheet the High Court did not get an opportunity to apply its mind as to whether on the basis of the material before the Magistrate a prima facie case had been made out against the accused-appellant. Under these circumstances we feel that it may not be proper to express any opinion on the merits of the case against the appellant based on the documents placed before us by learned counsel for the State save and except noting that the cheque in question i.e. the valuable security does not form part of this set of documents. It appears from the report that the stand of the complainant that a report regarding misplacing of the cheque and its user by the appellant had been lodged with the police was found to be incorrect. Nonetheless after further investigations the police finally filed the chargesheet against the appellant. We are convinced that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition. In our opinion in order to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the appellant had made out a case for quashing of the chargesheet against him the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the material which was placed before the Magistrate. For dismissal of the petition the High court had to record a finding that the uncontroverted allegations as made establish a prima facie case against the appellant. Therefore the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the chargesheet and consequent proceedings.
2. Applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Examination of Magistrate's discretion and cognizance under Section 190 of the Code.
4. Evaluation of the evidence collected by the prosecution.
5. Scope and ambit of High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Chargesheet and Consequent Proceedings:
The appellant sought the quashing of the chargesheet dated 16th December 2005 and the consequent proceedings initiated against him for allegedly committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court of Uttaranchal had dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Code, leading to the present appeal.

2. Applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The appellant argued that the High Court failed to appreciate that the Magistrate had improperly decided to proceed with the case without application of mind. The appellant contended that the chargesheet was perfunctory and did not satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offences. The appellant cited the parameters laid down in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992CriLJ527, arguing that the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.

3. Examination of Magistrate's Discretion and Cognizance under Section 190 of the Code:
The judgment elaborates on the statutory conditions requisite for the initiation of criminal proceedings under Chapter XIV of the Code, particularly Section 190. It explains that a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint, a police report, or information from any person other than a police officer. The Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating officer and can exercise discretion independently.

The term "cognizance" is discussed, highlighting that it means the Magistrate has taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations. The Magistrate initially did not take cognizance but ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. The police investigation led to a chargesheet, but the Magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance was emphasized.

4. Evaluation of the Evidence Collected by the Prosecution:
The High Court observed that no material had been placed before it, leading to an assumption that the prosecution had evidence supporting the complaint. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not get an opportunity to apply its mind to the material before the Magistrate, which was necessary to determine if a prima facie case was made out against the appellant. The absence of the cheque in question, a critical piece of evidence, was also noted.

5. Scope and Ambit of High Court's Powers under Section 482 of the Code:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court's powers under Section 482 are very wide and should be exercised to do real and substantial justice. The High Court should have considered the material placed before the Magistrate to determine if the allegations constituted a prima facie case. The dismissal of the petition by the High Court without evaluating the material was deemed improper.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The High Court was directed to evaluate the material placed before the Magistrate to determine if a prima facie case was made out against the appellant. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no expression of opinion on the merits of the case.