#cognizance

Bombay HC held that a Special Judge under the PC Act loses cognizance jurisdiction once the charge-sheet omits corruption offences. The transferee magistrate must pass fresh cognizance and remand orders under the BNSS; failure renders detention illegal. Two accused were released where the CBI charge-sheet dropped PC Act charges but the Special Judge retained the file without valid BNSS remand orders.

Under BNSS Sec 223(1), Delhi HC held that a magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses on oath before issuing notice to accused in a complaint, making examination prerequisite to cognizance and strengthening procedural safeguards for accused.

An FIR is not maintainable for a Section 138 NI Act offence; a complaint under Section 142A is required to take cognizance. This bars police from initiating cheque bounce proceedings without a complaint, affecting complainants and the accused.

The Supreme Court ruled that while police can file an FIR for alleged PCPNDT violations, the investigation must be conducted exclusively by the Act’s Appropriate Authority. Magistrates therefore cannot take cognizance of a police-prepared charge-sheet, curbing police powers in sex-selection cases.

The Delhi High Court held that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) 2018 makes prior governmental sanction a pre-condition for taking cognizance, and that the amendment operates only prospectively, leaving cases where cognizance was taken before 26 July 2018 untouched. This confines the amendment’s effect to pending and future prosecutions of public servants.

The Madras High Court ruled that a Directorate of Enforcement committal petition under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is invalid if filed before the Special Court has taken cognizance and the requisite sanction is produced. This bars premature transfers of DA cases to Special Courts, affecting enforcement agencies and the accused.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that Special Courts under the SEBI Act cannot take cognizance of offences without first affording the accused an opportunity to be heard, as mandated by the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS 2023. This sets a critical procedural safeguard for financial defendants, ensuring fair trial rights are not bypassed even in regulatory prosecutions.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a protest petition without first examining the police 'B' report, reinforcing the principle of natural justice in criminal proceedings. This judgment mandates judicial scrutiny of closure reports before accepting complaints, impacting procedural fairness in criminal trials.

Karnataka High Court rules that dowry-related offences under BNSS and Dowry Prohibition Act can be tried in India if any part-such as demand or seizure-occurs domestically, even if harassment occurred abroad. The court clarified that prior sanction under Section 208 BNSS is not required at the cognizance stage, expanding jurisdiction for victims of transnational dowry cases.

Allahabad High Court rules that courts cannot take cognizance of offences not included in the charge-sheet, reinforcing the statutory limitation under Section 190 CrPC. The judgment quashes summoning orders for uncharged IPC sections, safeguarding fair trial rights and preventing judicial overreach at the pre-trial stage.

Allahabad High Court quashed a cognizance order where the Magistrate unilaterally altered charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, violating the principle that charges must mirror the FIR. The ruling reinforces procedural fairness, mandating that trial courts strictly adhere to the charge-sheeted offences at the cognizance stage.

Allahabad HC rules that cognizance for offences under Section 188 IPC cannot be taken on a police report alone; a written complaint by the concerned public servant is mandatory. The decision reinforces procedural safeguards under Section 195 CrPC, impacting prosecution of public order offences.

Allahabad HC quashes criminal proceedings under Sections 500, 504, 506, and 509 IPC, ruling that defamation via police charge-sheet is impermissible. The court emphasized that civil disputes must not be weaponized into criminal cases, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to Section 199 CrPC.

Allahabad HC reinforces that courts cannot take cognizance of offences under IPC Sections 188 and 171-H against public servants without prior sanction under Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC. The ruling underscores the procedural bar as an absolute safeguard, quashing proceedings where compliance is lacking.

The Allahabad High Court has held that magistrates cannot issue summoning or cognizance orders by merely filling blanks on printed proformas. The law demands a reasoned application of judicial mind to establish a prima facie case, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing arbitrary prosecution. This ruling binds all trial courts in Uttar Pradesh and reinforces the constitutional right to a fair hearing at the earliest stage of criminal proceedings.