This criminal appeal was filed under Section 415/438 equivalent provisions seeking to set aside the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby cognizance was taken and process was issued against the appellant under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 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. The appellant argued that the order was cryptic, ignored a prior rejection of judicial remand for these specific charges, and that the Investigating Officer lacked the authority to add these sections. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, holding that an order refusing judicial remand does not bar subsequent police investigations or the submission of a charge-sheet, and that a meticulous evaluation of evidence is neither required nor permissible at the stage of taking cognizance.
- Scope of Cognizance vs. Summoning:
- Cognizance under Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 involves the application of judicial mind to the material on record to take notice of an offence, whereas summoning under Section 227 of the BNSS is a distinct, subsequent step to compel appearance.
- A summoning order requires no explicit or separate reasons as long as the court has applied its mind to the police report and accompanying material.
- Effect of Refusing Judicial Remand:
- An order refusing judicial remand is passed at a distinct stage and does not amount to an adjudication on the legality of the investigation or determine that offences are not made out.
- It does not restrict the Investigating Officer’s statutory authority to continue investigating, gather more evidence, and submit an appropriate police report.
- Evidentiary Evaluation at Threshold:
- Defenses concerning whether a promise of marriage was false at its inception or whether the insult occurred within public view pertain to factual determinations that must be tested during trial, not at the threshold of taking cognizance.
- The question of whether the victim’s caste status is properly disclosed in statements goes to the sufficiency of evidence and cannot be adjudicated by the appellate court to invalidate a valid cognizance order.
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 21
Adeem Ali Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others (D.O.J. July 15, 2026)
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 21 click here to view full text of judgment
