LexBHUSHAN KUMAR & ANR. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 2 S.C.R. 696 BHUSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2012) APRIL 4, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c ss. 190, 204 - Cognizance of offence and summoning order - Distinction between - Held: Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons - It is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge - A summon is a process issued by a Court calling upon a 0 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 - s.204 states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for E proceeding, then the summons may be issued. s. 204 - Requirement of assigning reasons for summoning a person - Held: Summoning order u/s. 204 does not mandate the Magistrate to state reasons for issuance of summons since it is imperative that the Magistrate must have F taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the a/legations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith. Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR under Section 420 IPC G against the appellants. The Magistrate summoned the appellants. The appellants challenged the summoning order before the High Court. By impugned order dated 30.07.2010, the High Court rejected the prayer for quashing the summoning order. H 696 \ BHUSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF 697 DELHI) & ANR. The questions which arise for consideration in these A appeals were: whether taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is same as summoning an accused to appear; and whether the Magistrate, while considering the question of summoning an accused, is required to assign reasons for the same. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. C 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 D enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code. A summon 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 E 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 F 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. Willful disobedience is liable to be punished under Section 174 IPC. It is a ground for contempt of court. Section 204 of the Code does not G 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 H 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A 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 pre-requisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued. The B order passed by the Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the ground that the summoning order was not a reasoned order. [Paras 8-10, 16] [703-E-H; 704-A-C;706- F] S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon C International Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 492: 2008 (2) SCR 36; Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. v. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722: 2000 (1) SCR 27; Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736: 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123; Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports D v. Roshanlal Agarwal & Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 139: 2003 (2) SCR 621 - relied on. 2. It is inherent in Section 251 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.