LexPRAMILA DEVI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1695 : 2025 INSC 560 Pramila Devi & Ors. A1: Pramila Devi A2: Satyanarain Sahu A3: Krishna Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. R1: The State of Jharkhand R2: Jyoti Beck (Criminal Appeal No. 2551 of 2024) 23 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance against one V and appellants on 13.06.2019 in SC/ST Case No.08/2017. Whether the Additional Judicial Commissioner while taking cognizance has to record detailed reasons for taking cognizance; whether the FIR (u/ss.498A, 406 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 and s.3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) itself was instituted with mala fide intention and was liable to be quashed. Headnotes† Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(1)(iv) – Respondent no.2 filed complaint against one V and appellants which culminated into FIR u/ss.498A, 406 and 420 of the IPC and s.3(1)(iv) of the SC/ST Act – The Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance against one V and appellants on 13.06.2019 in SC/ST Case No.08/2017 – The High Court set aside the cognizance order and remitted the matter to the Additional Judicial Commissioner to pass order afresh as in the cognizance order, prima facie material against the appellants had not been disclosed – Correctness: Held: Approach of the High Court was erroneous – Perusal of the order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019 discloses that the * Author 1696 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Additional Judicial Commissioner has stated that the ‘case diary and case record’ have been perused, which disclosed a prima facie case made out u/ss.498A, 406 and 420 of the IPC and s.3 (1)(g) of the SC/ST Act against the accused including appellants – Further, this Court finds the approach of the Additional Judicial Commissioner correct inasmuch as while taking cognizance, it firstly applied its mind to the materials before it to form an opinion as to whether any offence has been committed and thereafter went into the aspect of identifying the persons who appeared to have committed the offence – Accordingly, the process moves to the next stage; of issuance of summons or warrant, as the case may be, against such persons – In the instant case, the Additional Judicial Commissioner has taken cognizance while recording a finding that - from a perusal of the case diary and case record, a prima facie case was made out against the accused, including the appellants – On an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019, being in accordance with law, was not required to be interfered with by the High Court. [Paras 15, 16, 21] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 406 and 420 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(1)(iv) – Whether the FIR (u/ss.498A, 406 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 and s.3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) itself was instituted with mala fide intention and was liable to be quashed: Held: Perusal of the entire gamut of the pleadings of the appellants does not disclose any categorical statement to the effect that during investigation by the police, no evidence has emerged to warrant taking of cognizance, much less against the appellants – The only averment which has been made is that the Trial Court had not recorded the prima facie material against the appellants because it does not exist – This is too simplistic an argument and does not shift the burden from the appellants of taking a categorical stand that no material whatsoever for taking cognizance is available in the police papers/case diary against the appellants – Be it noted, the State has argued that sufficient material warranting cognizance has been unearthed during the course of investigation – Also, chargesheet mentions that on the basis of investigation, site [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1697 Pramila Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. inspection and statements of the complainant, the police has found the allegations true against all the accused including appellants. [Paras 19, 20] Case Law Cited Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2012] 2 SCR 696 : (2012) 5 SCC 424; Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta [2015] 1 SCR 1069 : (2015) 3 SCC 424 – relied on. Mehmo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.