Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Cognizance Order for Lack of Judicial Mind Application
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Zafeer Ahmad, dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Adeem Ali, challenging the order of cognizance and summoning issued by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri. The appeal was against the cognizance taken 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 the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appellant contended that the impugned order dated March 25, 2026, lacked due application of judicial mind and was passed without proper consideration of the evidence. Furthermore, it was argued that the Investigating Officer had no authority to add offences after a previous judicial remand was declined. The defense cited several Supreme Court judgments to support their claims.
However, the court, after examining the material collected during the investigation, found that the Special Judge had duly considered the police report and witness statements before concluding that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellant. The court emphasized that at the stage of cognizance, a detailed evaluation of evidence is neither required nor permissible, and the order’s brevity does not imply a lack of judicial application.
The court also clarified that the refusal of judicial remand does not preclude further investigation or the trial court from taking cognizance of the offence. It highlighted that an order refusing judicial remand is distinct from an order taking cognizance and does not determine the legality of the investigation or whether the offences are made out.
In dismissing the appeal, the court stated that the issues raised by the defense, including those related to the victim's caste status and the authority of the Investigating Officer, are matters to be resolved during the trial. The judgment underscored that the submissions made on behalf of the appellant do not provide sufficient grounds for interfering with the cognizance order.
The decision reaffirms the legal principle that at the cognizance stage, the court’s role is limited to assessing whether the material on record prima facie discloses the commission of an offence, not to adjudicate on the sufficiency of evidence.
Bottom line:-
Scope of interference with an order taking cognizance and issuing process - At the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon the probable defence of the accused.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 69 and 210, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v)
Adeem Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2942911
