TARAWATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3629 of 2026

Tarawati
                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                           .....Opposite
                                                                 Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Ashutosh Pandey, Shobh              Nath
                               Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Rishikesh Tripathi

Court No. - 82
               HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The application under section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicant seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 27.05.2025
passed by the ACJM - I, Agra in Case No. 10369 of 2025 arising out
of Case Crime No. 520 of 2024 under sections 467, 468, 471 and 506
IPC, P.S. Jagdishpura, District - Agra pending in the court of ACJM I,
Agra.

3. Brief fact of the present case is that the applicant is informant and
caused the lodging of FIR under sections 420,467,468,471,506 I.P.C.
against the Opposite Party nos. 2 to 6 and after investigation, the
investigating officer has extended the section 120B I.P.C. and
thereafter charge sheet has been submitted against the aforesaid
Opposite Party nos. 2 to 6 on 24.04.2025 under sections 420, 468,
471, 506, 120B, 467 I.P.C. concerned magistrate has taken
cognizance on 27.05.2025 in under sections 467, 468, 471, 506
I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that concerned
magistrate was taken cognizance on 27.05.2025 under sections 467,
468, 471, 506 I.P.C. which is illegal, improper because the charge
sheet has been submitted under sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B,
                                                            NA528 No. 3629 of 2026
                                  2


467 of I.P.C.. So, the applicant/informant namely Tarawati has given
an application on dated 09.12.2025 before the court ACJM-I, Agra
and prayed for correction in the cognizance order, but same was
rejected on same date. He further submitted that in the present case,
the ACJM-1 has issued a non-bailable warrant against the all
accused persons under sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, 467
I.P.C., He further submitted that the magistrate has removed the
sections 420 & 120B I.P.C. in cognizance order, but when the
informant was given an application about the typographical error, but
same was rejected by the ACJM-I Agra on same date. He lastly
submitted that the magistrate while taking cognizance cannot took
cognizance in some other sections than those mentioned in he
charge-sheet.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party and learned AGA for the
state has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the applicant. He further submitted that the magistrate while taking
cognizance, is not bound by the charge sheet and can summoned in
additional sections than those mentioned in the charge-sheet.

6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and
perusing the material available on record.

7. The core issue for the consideration before this court is that
whether the magistrate at the time of taking cognizance can
summons the accused for the offences not mentioned in the charge
sheet.

8. In the case of Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and
others (2006) 4 SCC 356, the Apex Court observed as under:-
"11. .......... The position is, therefore, now well-settled that upon receipt of a
police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance
of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is
to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can
take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police
during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and
order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay
down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the
Investigating Officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a
case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at
                                                          NA528 No. 3629 of 2026
                                 3

by the Investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts
emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks
fit, exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of
process to the accused."


9. In the case of Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306
: (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 159 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 648, the Apex
Court observed as under:-

"34. The view expressed in Kishun Singh case [Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar,
(1993) 2 SCC 16 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 470] , in our view, is more acceptable
since, as has been held by this Court in the cases referred to hereinbefore, the
Magistrate has ample powers to disagree with the final report that may be filed
by the police authorities under Section 173(2) of the Code and to proceed
against the accused persons dehors the police report, which power the
Sessions Court does not have till the Section 319 stage is reached. The
upshot of the said situation would be that even though the Magistrate had
powers to disagree with the police report filed under Section 173(2) of the
Code, he was helpless in taking recourse to such a course of action while the
Sessions Judge was also unable to proceed against any person, other than
the accused sent up for trial, till such time evidence had been adduced and
the witnesses had been cross-examined on behalf of the accused."
"35. In our view, the Magistrate has a role to play while committing the case to
the Court of Session upon taking cognizance on the police report submitted
before him under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. In the event the Magistrate disagrees
with the police report, he has two choices. He may act on the basis of a
protest petition that may be filed, or he may, while disagreeing with the police
report, issue process and summon the accused. Thereafter, if on being
satisfied that a case had been made out to proceed against the persons
named in column no.2 of the report, proceed to try the said persons or if he
was satisfied that a case had been made out which was triable by the Court of
Session, he may commit the case to the Court of Session to proceed further in
the matter."

10. It is the well settled principle of the law that the magistrate is not
bound by the police report. When the charge sheet is submitted, the
magistrate has two options either to accept the police report or to
reject the police report. When the magistrate does not agree with the
police report, he is empowered to take cognizance independently by
applying his judicial mind on the material available on record. Let's
assume a situation in which the magistrate does not have any power
                                                       NA528 No. 3629 of 2026
                               4


to disagree with the police report or he is bound by the police report.
So, in this situation, if the police submits a final report, the magistrate
has no other option but to agree with the report of the police. But, in
fact, the situation is not the same as stated above. In reality,
magistrate has power to disagree with the police report and where
police submits a final report, he is free to summons the accused on
the basis of the material available on record by applying his judicial
mind( if prima facie discloses the commission of offence). Now, In the
light of aforesaid discussion, it is evident that when a magistrate is
empowered to disagree with the final report and to take cognizance
by exercising its judicial mind when the final report is submitted, it
cannot be said that magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance
for the offences not mentioned in the charge sheet when the material
available on record discloses the commission of offence.

11. Coming to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the
impugned order clearly reveals that while passing the same, the
learned Magistrate has not recorded any satisfaction regarding non-
taking of cognizance for certain offences mentioned in the charge-
sheet. The learned Magistrate has merely observed that upon perusal
of the charge-sheet and other prosecution documents, sufficient
grounds exist for taking cognizance. In the present case, the charge-
sheet was submitted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and
120-B IPC, whereas cognizance vide order dated 27.05.2025 was
taken only under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. No reason
whatsoever has been assigned by the learned Magistrate for not
taking cognizance under the remaining sections for which the charge-
sheet had been submitted. The impugned order, therefore, suffers
from the vice of non-application of judicial mind and is also a non-
speaking order, as it does not reflect the subjective satisfaction
recorded by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the same is liable to be
set aside.

12. Cognizance order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the ACJM - I,
Agra in Case No. 10369 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 520 of
2024 under sections 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC is hereby set aside.

13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
                                                                                     NA528 No. 3629 of 2026
                                                                5


                                    14. The matter is remanded back to the concerned court for passing
                                    a fresh reasoned cognizance order reflecting application of judicial
                                    mind.

                                    March 12, 2026
                                    Israr
                                                                             (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad