In a criminal appeal filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking setting aside of an order dated 25-03-2026 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in a case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby cognizance was taken and the appellant was summoned, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
The appellant asserted that the trial court had failed to consider its earlier order whereby judicial remand of the appellant was refused. It was also contended that the IO had no authority to add offences in respect of which the trial court had already declined judicial remand and that a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the statements did not disclose that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste.
The Court stated that cognizance under Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) referred to the Magistrate’s application of judicial mind to the material on record so as to take judicial notice of an offence, whereas summoning under Section 227 of the BNSS is the subsequent and distinct step of compelling the accused’s appearance in consequence of that cognizance. It was said that even though the two are frequently recorded in a single order, they are conceptually separate stages of proceedings.
It was clarified that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence collected during investigation or adjudicate upon the probable defence of the accused. The Court stated that the jurisdiction is confined to examining whether the material, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence and furnishes sufficient ground for proceeding. Further, the Court elaborated that an order taking cognizance must disclose the application of judicial mind to the material collected during investigation and that a subsequent summoning order requires no separate or explicit reasons of its own.
After perusing the impugned order dated 25-03-2026, the Court found that the Special Judge had specifically recorded that the material collected during investigation disclosed the commission of offences and that the issues required appreciation of evidence. The Court stated that merely because the order is concise or does not have an elaborate discussion of each piece of evidence, cannot by itself, lead to the conclusion that it was passed without application of judicial mind.
The Court also refused to accept the contention that the IO lacked authority to invoke Section 69 of the BNS and provisions of the SC/ST Act after the trial court had declined judicial remand under those provisions also did not merit acceptance. It was stated that an order refusing judicial remand is passed at a distinct stage of the criminal proceedings and serves a purpose entirely different from an order taking cognizance. Hence, the Court said that merely because judicial remand was declined earlier, it would not preclude the IO from conducting further investigation or prevent trial court from independently considering the police report at the stage of cognizance.
The Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned order and thus, dismissed the petition at admission stage.
