[2025:RJ-JP:50587] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3268/2013 1. Arun Kumar Mahajan S/O Praye Lal, R/o 143 Sector-10 A, Gurgaon Haryana, At present CM (Construction Manager) BHEL CTPP Motipura. 2. Keshav Kumar S/o Shiv Nandan Prasad, R/o Asha Nagar, Distt. Nalanda Bihar At present E.M. CM, BHEL, CTPP, Motipura. 3. Pradeep Kumar S/o Ramesh Chand, R/o H.No. 102, Block-A, MIG-2, Rohini, New Delhi. At present Tharmal Plant, Jhansi. 4. Bulusu Vinayaka Nga Kishore S/o Bulus Rama Krishna Murty, R/o Flat No. HF-201, Saket Dham, Sector 41, Noida at present BHEL, Sec. 16-A, Noida. 5. Shashi Bhushan Bharti S/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o Fertilizer Colony, Gorakhpur U.P. At present Tharmal Power Plant Sonebhadra. 6. Ganesh Mahajan S/o Uttam Lal, R/o Kajgaon Police Station Kajgaon District Jalgaon Maharashtra. At present HZ-1331 H- 1331, Anukiran Colony, Maharashtra. 7. Kaushal Kishore Anand S/o Prahlad Kuril, R/o 566/133, S-8, Nagar Easer Aalambagh, P.S. Chander Nagar, Lukhnow (UP) At present BHEL, Nasik. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan 2. Prince Kumar Sharma S/o Kishan Ghopal, R/o H.No.6-F-4 Mahaveer Nagar-III, Kota At present Power Plant Chhabra. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rinesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Shekhawat, PP Mr. Sarthak Palaria, Adv. for Mr. Vinod Kumar Tomoliya, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/11/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioners for quashing of FIR No.58/2010 registered at Police Station Bapcha, District Baran for offences punishable under Sections 304 & 336 of IPC and further, for quashing of order dated 26.06.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chabbra, District Baran (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Revisional Court’ for brevity) in Revision No.54/2012, whereby the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chabbra, Baran whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 304A and 336 of IPC. 2. The material facts of the case disclose that on 31.03.2010, injured Prince Kumar Sharma, working as Operator in Boiler Thermal Power Plant Motipura, gave a parcha bayan at CHC, Chabbra to the effect that he was working as Boiler Operator in Shakti Enterprises of M/s Thermal Power Plant since last nine months. As usually, he was doing his job alongwith one Jahid Ali and Engineer of BHL Shri Pradeep. About 20-22 people were working around the Boiler. During the course of operation, at about 12:15 PM, a coal pipe suddenly exploded, cuasing injuries to certain workers including the complainant. A bare perusal of the FIR indicates that the pressure was increased from the control room, which was admittedly under the control of RVUNL. 3. Subsequent to the incident, an Expert Committee consisting of the Chief Engineer and Superintendent Engineer (Boiler) was constituted to ascertain the cause of the accident. After examining all relevant technical aspects, the committee submitted its report [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] dated 08.04.2010, wherein it was categorically concluded that there was no negligence attributable to any individual. 4. Despite the said Expert Report, the Investigating Agency proceeded to interpret the findings in its own manner and concluded that an offence was made out against the present petitioners. The Investigating Officer, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kota Village Circle, recorded that further investigation was pending and submitted the factual report to the Inspector General, Kota Range. However, without conducting any further investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioners. 5. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 27.07.2012, took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 304A and 336 of IPC without adverting to the Expert report or examining whether the essential ingredients of Sections 304A and 336 of IPC were prima facie made out. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 26.06.2013, without addressing the factual and legal infirmities pointed out by the petitioners. Hence, this present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners. 7. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had no operational or supervisory control over the Boiler or the control room, and that the Expert Committee had categorically ruled out negligence. It is contended that the learned trial Court mechanically took cognizance against the petitioners as essential ingredients of [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] Section 304A IPC, i.e., gross and culpable negligence, are completely absent, and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. Sr. counsel places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s J.M. Laboratories & Ors. versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 208 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the summoning order being a non-speaking order as same has been issued without assigning any cogent reason. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and has supported the impugned order of cognizance passed by the courts below. 9. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar by the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as impugned orders passed by the courts below. 10. So far as the prayer of the petitioners’ counsel seeking quashing of the impugned FIR is concerned, a bare perusal of FIR, discloses commission of cognizable offences, and after a thorough investigation, police has also submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. The case of the present petitioners is not covered under any guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for by this Court so as to quash the impugned FIR. [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] 11. However, this Court deems it fit and proper to make certain observations on the order taking cognizance as this Court is not convinced and satisfied with the manner and way, same has been dealt with by the learned trial court. 12. At the stage of cognizance, it is mandatory for the learned trial Magistrate to consider the entire documents submitted along with the charge-sheet/complaint and the evidence adduced in support of complaint in order to find out prima facie case against the accused to issue process. Initiation of the criminal proceedings is not a mere formality for the learned Magistrates, and when charge-sheet or complaint is submitted before them, then learned Magistrate is not to act as a mouth piece or as a post office for the prosecution. At the stage of cognizance, it is expected from the learned Magistrate to examine the material produced by the Investigation Agency or complainant and to examine basic infirmities which appear in the prosecution case. It is true that at the stage of cognizance, meticulous examination of evidence is not required but for limited purpose of issuance of criminal process, the learned Magistrates are at least, required to apply judicial mind, as initiation of criminal prosecution is a very serious issue because criminal action against a party means they have to deal with police, court hearings, loss of reputation and a variety of other kinds of pressure. 13. Though, the word 'cognizance' has not been defined in the criminal procedure code, but the meaning of cognizance can be derived from the number of precedents and judicial pronouncements. The dictionary meaning of cognizance is taking account of, taking note of, to gain knowledge about, to have [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] knowledge regarding something. The meaning of Cognizance given in Black's Law Dictionary, reads as under: Cognizance:- Jurisdiction, or the exercise of jurisdiction, or power to try and determine causes; judicial examination of a matter, or power and authority to make it. 14. In Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 765, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “...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 of Judge, to take notice of judicially....” 15. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “....though, the term ‘cognizance’ has not been defined either in the 1988 Act or the Cr.P.C, the same has acquired a definite meaning and connotation from various judicial precedents. In legal parlance cognizance is "taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or matter judicially.” 16. In State of W.B. and Another vs. Mohd. Khalid and Another, (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 684, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “Section 190 of the Code talks of cognizance of offences by Magistrates. This expression has not been defined in the Code. In its broad and literal sense, it means taking notice of an offence. This would include the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings or for [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] other purposes.The word 'cognizance' indicates the point when a Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice of an offence. It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. It has, thus, reference to the hearing and determination of the case in connection with an offence.” 17. In R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., AIR 1951 SC 207, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of offence.” 18. It was further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it can be said that when any Magistrate takes cognizance of any offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C., he must apply his mind for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of Chapter. Taking cognizance of an offence is the first and foremost step towards trial. Cognizance literally means knowledge or notice, and taking cognizance of offence means taking notice, or becoming aware of the alleged commission of an offence. Obviously, the Judicial Officer will have to take cognizance of the offence before he could proceed to conduct a trial. A Magistrate takes cognizance when he applies his mind or takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of offence which is said to have been [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] committed. It bears repetition to state that taking cognizance is entirely an act of the Magistrate. 19. Taking guidance from all the above mentioned pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it can be safely concluded that before taking cognizance judicial mind must be applied by the learned Magistrate. 20. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, this court finds that from bare first look of the order of taking cognizance, it reveals that judicial mind was not applied by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2022 (SC) 5151 has observed in paragraph No.28 that order of issue of process is not an empty formality. Learned Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether the sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not and held as under:- “28. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima-facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which reads thus: 51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima-facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot refuse merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima-facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Magistrate has failed to apply his judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order does not even record that the material placed [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] before the Court was perused. The learned Magistrate has merely adverted to the filing of the charge sheet and receipt of a report from the office and, on that basis alone, proceeded to take cognizance. There is no indication that the learned Magistrate considered whether the allegations disclosed the commission of any offence against the petitioners. Such an order reflects a patent non-application of mind, as an order taking cognizance must demonstrate the Magistrate’s prima facie satisfaction, arrived at upon consideration of the material collected during the course of investigation. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality as it may affect the personal liberty of a person. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees personal liberty of a person and same cannot be deprived of, without due procedure of law. Apart from this, summoning of accused to appear before criminal Court after taking cognizance is a serious matter, affecting the dignity, self-respect and his/her image in society. Therefore, proper process by the criminal Court must be followed at the time of taking cognizance and summoning the accused. 23. Consequently, this Criminal Misc. Petition is partly allowed. The order dated 26.06.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chabbra, District Baran in Revision No.54/2012 and the cognizance order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chabbra, Baran are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court with a direction to pass a fresh, reasoned and detailed order on the issue of cognizance in light of [2025:RJ-JP:50587] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-3268/2013] the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited case laws. 24. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki/79