Prayagraj, 18 November (HS). The Allahabad High Court said that errors clearly visible on record, such as non-mention of date and time recorded in the FIR, cannot be rectified during deliberations. Justice Saurabh Srivastava has described as ‘extremely shocking’ the act of taking cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mirzapur, when the FIR did not contain important details like date, time and witnesses.
The Court said that the CJM again took cognizance ignoring the facts of absence of important details in the FIR. Whereas the reconsideration court had sent the case to the magistrate to decide afresh.
According to the case, the court had sent the case back to the concerned magistrate after petitioner Jagat Singh filed a criminal review challenging the magistrate’s previous order dated October 1, 2018. Who took cognizance of the charge sheet which did not contain the above necessary details. The court observed that the FIR in the case lacks important details, especially date and time. The single judge said that the magistrate should consider these factors before taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present case, an FIR was registered against the petitioner Jagat Singh in Mirzapur under sections 143, 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a dispute regarding the right of way. A charge sheet was filed in this case, of which the concerned magistrate took cognizance on October 1, 2018. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a review petition, which the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur accepted on July 20, 2022, quashed the magistrate’s order and sent the case for a fresh decision.
However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate again took cognizance on December 1, 2023, which was again challenged before the review court. This time his challenge was rejected and the magistrate’s order was confirmed.
The petitioner moved the High Court, challenging both the order of the Revision Court and the order of the CJM taking cognizance. It said the FIR lacks essential details such as specific date, time and witnesses, which are crucial for any information filed under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite this, it was argued that the CJM took cognizance mech.cally and the reconsideration court had also wrongly confirmed the order.
Finding both the orders highly illegal and wrong, the court allowed the petition, keeping aside the proceedings of the entire case. However, the Court has given liberty to respondent No. 2 to provide information about any incident, if any, along with its date and time to the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance.
