Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30912 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8979 of 2024 Appellant :- Rahul Kushwaha Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Narayan,Ankit Pandey,Chandrakant Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gopal Krishna Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been moved by the appellant Rahul Kushwaha feeling aggrieved with the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 704 of 2024, (State of U.P. Vs. Rahul Kushwaha), under Sections 354-Gha, 353, 504 IPC, & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the charge-sheet submitted in the aforesaid matter by the Investigating Officer of the case is not sustainable under law, the Investigating Officer did not pay attention to the fact that no credible evidence was adduced before the Investigating Officer during investigation. It was also submitted that the accused-appellant has absolutely no concern with the victim of this case and the prosecution story was not corroborated by the any cogent or independent evidence and from perusal of F.I.R. itself no offence under SC/ST Act was prima-facie established against the appellant. It has further submitted that the appellant is the member/Sabhasad of Nagar Nigam, Jhansi and since the victim who is Sanitary Inspector was not doing her job properly, the appellant made a complaint to the Nagar Ayukt and in the state of grudge a false F.I.R. was lodged by the victim against the present appellant. Since the charge-sheet in this matter has been submitted on the basis of insufficient and false evidence, the cognizance order made there upon and summoning order subsequent to it are also not sustainable under law and are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the appeal. However, he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter. 5. From perusal of the record it appears that the informant of this case belongs to the marginal section of society and is a member of SC/ST community, she was bitterly annoyed with the appellant for his act of eave teasing and molesting her. The Investigating Officer during the investigation has concluded sufficient and consistent evidence against the appellant and it was also found that the F.I.R. of this case was not lodged on account of any grudge or animosity by the informant. The charge-sheet in this matter was also submitted under relevant sections of law which is explicitly clear from perusal of the record. 6. The prosecution story is corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses and the informant herself has corroborated the prosecution version in material terms and the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer does not deserve to be quashed or set aside and the summoning order is also a valid order which cannot be disturbed in the instant appeal. 7. In Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that cognizance is an act of the court. Cognizance is taken when a Magistrate or court applies his mind or takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed. This is the special connotation acquired by the term "cognizance", and is given the same meaning wherever it appears in Ch. XXXVI as well. Cognizance is entirely an act of the Magistrate/court. Taking cognizance may be delayed because of several reasons whether systemic reasons or due to the Magistrate's or Judge's personal reasons. 8. Further in Darshan Singh v. Maharashtra, (1971) 2 SCC 654: 1971 SCC (Cri) 628 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a police officer. Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report, prima facie he does so, of the offence or offences disclosed in such report. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground in the appeal presented by the appellant-accused against the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 08.05.2024 which is under challenge in the instant appeal. Appeal has no force and is liable to dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. However, it is clarified that if within a period of two weeks from today the appellant appears/surrender or is brought before the court and applies for bail his bail application shall be disposed of in the light of dictum of law promulgated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. 11. However, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant for a period of two weeks from today. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad