""Judicial Scrutiny of Cognizance: Patna High Court Upholds Lower Court’s Decision in SC/ST Atrocities Case""

 


Introduction

The present analysis focuses on the judgment delivered by the Patna High Court in the case titled "CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1407 of 2020" which arose from SC/ST P.S. Case No. 12 of 2014. The petitioners in this case, Jhulan Yadav and Lallan Yadav, sought the quashing of an order of cognizance dated 18.12.2017, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st Buxar under Sections 395, 397, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act). The case was presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around an alleged incident that took place on the night of 3rd February 2014 at approximately 11:00 PM. According to the informant (Opposite Party No. 2), several accused individuals, including the petitioners and three unidentified persons, forcibly entered her house, armed with firearms. It was alleged that during this intrusion, two of the accused committed rape on the informant and also looted valuable items such as clothes and ornaments. The accused allegedly fled the scene when villagers arrived upon hearing the informant’s alarm.

The complaint petition was initially filed and subsequently referred under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to the police for investigation. Following the investigation, the police submitted a final report on 31st August 2017, declaring the case to be false. However, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st Buxar, diverging from the police's findings, took cognizance of the matter on 18th December 2017.

Grounds for Seeking Quashing of Cognizance Order

The petitioners contested the validity of the order of cognizance on the following grounds:

  1. Absence of Justification for Deviation from Final Report: The petitioners argued that the lower court took cognizance of the case without assigning any reason for disregarding the final report submitted by the police.
  2. Delay in Filing of Complaint: The complaint was filed after a delay of three days from the alleged incident, without any reasonable explanation provided for the delay.
  3. Lack of Medical Evidence: The petitioners highlighted that there was no medical evidence to support the allegations of rape or assault.
  4. Non-application of Judicial Mind: It was argued that the lower court did not apply its judicial mind appropriately before taking cognizance of the case.

State’s Defense

The learned counsel for the State countered the petitioners’ arguments by asserting that:

  1. The order of cognizance was valid and proper, being based on careful consideration of the complaint petition and the materials collected during the investigation.
  2. The lower court had sufficient grounds to reach a prima facie conclusion that the offenses under the specified sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act were made out.
  3. The absence of medical evidence or delay in filing the complaint was not sufficient grounds to interfere with the order of cognizance at this stage.

Court’s Reasoning and Judgment

Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to assign detailed reasons for deviating from the final report submitted by the police. The court only needs to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused based on the complaint or evidence presented. Additionally, it was emphasized that the absence of medical evidence or delay in filing the complaint does not justify quashing the order of cognizance.

The court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish valid grounds for quashing the order of cognizance and, therefore, dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that the magistrate’s satisfaction about sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused is sufficient for taking cognizance of the case.

Conclusion

The judgment by the Patna High Court in CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1407 of 2020 illustrates the limited scope of interference by higher courts at the stage of cognizance. By emphasizing that detailed reasoning is not required at this stage, the judgment underscores the importance of allowing the trial process to proceed when a prima facie case is made out. The dismissal of the petition reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring that procedural technicalities do not obstruct the course of justice.

Read the full judgement Below;

NiMxNDA3IzIwMjAjMSNO-TQfuss3UmHU=