Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (9) TMI 997 - SC - Indian LawsAppellant 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.
|