Court reiterates Magistrate's independent authority to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, emphasizing prima facie scrutiny without detailed evidence evaluation
In a significant judgment delivered on September 1, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, through Justice Sandeep Jain, upheld the order of a Judicial Magistrate summoning accused persons in an attempt to murder case despite the police submitting a final report stating no case was made out against them. The case, involving Jeetu Soni as the complainant and Satendra alias Chunmun and Narain as the accused, highlights the judiciary's stance on the Magistrate's independent power under Section 190(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The factual matrix reveals that on March 18, 2015, the complainant Jeetu Soni lodged an FIR alleging that the accused fired at his brother Anil Soni with intent to kill, resulting in a firearm injury. Despite the Investigating Officer filing a final report absolving the accused, the Magistrate, upon considering the material in the case diary-including medical injury reports and witness statements under Section 161 CrPC-took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused to face trial.
The accused challenged this summons in a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Auraiya, who set aside the Magistrate's order on the ground that the Magistrate had not recorded a specific finding about the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding. However, the High Court, after a detailed examination of the law, quashed the revisional court's order and reinstated the Magistrate's summons.
The Court relied heavily on Supreme Court precedents such as Rakesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of UP (2019), which clarify that a Magistrate is not bound by the police report's conclusions and can independently apply judicial mind to the facts. The Magistrate need only determine the existence of a prima facie case for issuance of process under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and is not obliged to undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence or consider the defense version at this stage. Moreover, the Court affirmed that the procedures under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC are not mandatory for cognizance under Section 190(1)(b).
The judgment underscores that the Magistrate's role at the cognizance stage is limited to assessing whether sufficient ground exists to proceed, not to weigh the merits or demerits of the case or to predict conviction. It also reiterates the judicial safeguard that an informant must be given a hearing opportunity if the Magistrate considers dropping the case or proceeding partially.
In the instant matter, the injury report and statements of the injured and complainant were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, justifying the Magistrate's decision to summon the accused. The Court thus allowed the writ petition filed by the complainant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and affirmed the Magistrate's order, directing that the accused face trial.
This ruling reinforces the autonomy and responsibility vested in Magistrates to independently scrutinize police reports and protect the interests of justice, especially in serious offences like attempt to murder.
Bottom Line:
Magistrate, while taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, can issue process even if the police report concludes no case is made out against the accused. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 190(1)(b), Section 161, Section 173, Section 200, Section 202; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 307
Jeetu Soni v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975202
