Sr. No. 05 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRMC No. 104/2018 Anil Dhar and others …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Zulker Nain, Advocate V/s Murti Gupta …..Respondent(s) Through:- None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE ORDER 27.02.2026 1. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioners, invoking Section 561-A Cr.P.C, is an order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class (Sub-Judge), Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 427 and 34 RPC. Impugned cognizance order has been challenged by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind and has not indicated any reason as to how, on the basis of averments made in the complaint, offences punishable under Sections 323, 427 and 34 RPC are made out. 2. The petition is opposed by the respondent, by filing his objections. In his objections, he has reiterated the contents of the complaint and has contended that the ingredients of all the offences for which cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court are present and, therefore, the order of taking cognizance, impugned in this petition, is to be sustained. CRMC No. 104/2018____ 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate is non-speaking and does not spell out sufficiently as to how the ingredients of offences under Sections 323, 427 and 34 RPC are made out from the averments made in the complaint. 4. Needless to say that it is now well-settled that taking of cognizance, on a complaint, is not a mere formality but indeed application of mind by the learned Magistrate to take an informed decision as to whether the persons named in the complaint as accused are required to be proceeded with for commission of offences alleged or not. The Magistrate is under an obligation to carefully go through the complaint and statements of the complainant and witnesses, if any, recorded to find out as to whether the complaint, together with the statements, disclose the prima-facie commission of offences alleged in the complaint and this would be possible only if the learned Magistrate discusses the averments made in the complaint coupled with the statements recorded and is satisfied that the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged are made out. Obviously, this has not happened in the instant case. 5. For the reasons, this petition is allowed. The order taking cognizance which is non-speaking, is quashed. The learned Magistrate is called upon to decide the issue of taking cognizance afresh by passing a speaking order. (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Jammu: 27.02.2026 Shafqat