The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, refusing to take cognizance of a charge sheet in a criminal case alleging intimidation of a prosecution witness in a pending POCSO trial, holding that the Magistrate had exceeded the limited scope of scrutiny at the stage of taking cognizance by effectively conducting a mini trial.
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was hearing a criminal revision filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the Magistrate’s order declining to take cognizance despite the filing of a police report alleging offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The case arose out of allegations that a government doctor, who had medically examined a minor rape survivor and later deposed as a prosecution witness in a POCSO trial, was threatened and intimidated by the accused to influence her testimony.
The High Court observed that while refusing cognizance, the Magistrate authored a detailed 31-page order examining the credibility of the evidence, commenting on the quality of investigation, and assessing the applicability of various penal provisions. Such an exercise, the Court held, amounted to evaluating the merits of the prosecution case at a stage where only a prima facie assessment is permissible.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions, the Bench reiterated that while taking cognizance, a Magistrate is only required to determine whether the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case. The Court cannot sift through the evidence or assess whether it is sufficient to ultimately secure a conviction.
The Bench further held that the Magistrate had also committed a procedural error by refusing cognizance without issuing notice to the informant. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537, the Court observed that where a Magistrate proposes to drop proceedings or refuse cognizance on a police report, the informant must be afforded an opportunity of hearing, as such an order directly prejudices the informant’s interest.
Upon examining the charge sheet, case diary and material collected during investigation, the High Court found that the record disclosed a prima facie case warranting consideration by the Magistrate. It held that the Magistrate had committed a manifest error of law by venturing into an elaborate appreciation of the evidence before the commencement of trial.
The Court said
“
“The stage of trial is well recognized in criminal procedure and that certainly had not arrived to require the Magistrate to venture into an analysis of all the material that she has done.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the State’s revision petition, set aside the order dated September 20, 2025, and restored the matter to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, directing the Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the police report in accordance with law and the principles laid down in the judgment.
