Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand 2025 case drew attention due to its focus on the validity of an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance in the absence of explicit reasons and the issue of whether prima facie material against the accused needs to be disclosed in such orders. The appeal also highlighted the scope of judicial scrutiny over the orders of the Magistrate and whether higher courts can interfere with them. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand 2025 Introduction

The case of Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand 2025 revolves around an appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the 2022 decision of the High Court that set aside the cognizance order in a case involving allegations of harassment, eviction and caste-based abuse. Respondent No.2, the second wife of Late Vishnu Sahu, accused him and his family members of mistreatment which led to the registration of an FIR and subsequent legal proceedings. The decision of the High Court to remand the matter for a fresh decision due to insufficient prima facie material is central to the appeal. 

Download Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand 2025 Free PDF

The case at hand centres around an appeal filed against the 2022 decision of the High Court which set aside the cognizance order in a matter involving allegations of harassment, eviction and caste-based abuse by Respondent No.2, the second wife of Late Vishnu Sahu, against him and his family. The main issue centers on the remand of the case for a fresh decision due to insufficient disclosure of prima facie material. The following are the facts of Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand -

Background of the Appeal

The present appeal is filed by the Appellants against the Final Judgment and Order dated 9th March, 2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. In the Impugned Judgment, the High Court set aside the cognizance Order dated 13th June, 2019 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi, in SC/ST Case. The High Court remanded the matter for a fresh decision and cited that prima facie material against the Appellants had not been disclosed.

Parties Involved

The case involves multiple parties including the informant and Appellants, each with significant roles in the allegations.

• Respondent No.2 (Informant): Claims to be the second wife of Late Vishnu Sahu.
• Appellant No.1: The first wife of Vishnu Sahu.
• Appellants No.2 and 3: The children of Vishnu Sahu and Appellant No.1.

Allegations by Respondent No.2

Respondent No.2 contended that Vishnu Sahu, posing as an unmarried man, befriended her about 25-30 years ago and married her in 1990 at Jagannath Temple, following Hindu customs. They lived together for over 26 years and had three children namely, Reshma Kumari, Rupa Kumari and Vishal Kumar. Respondent No.2 claims that she took a loan in her name to construct a pakka house on land purchased by her father in her name. She resided in this house with her children.

However, she alleges that after 26 years of marriage, Vishnu Sahu, his first wife (Appellant No.1) and their children began harassing and assaulting her. She claims that in 2013, they evicted her and her children from the house. Further, she accused Vishnu Sahu and Appellants of depriving her of her land and house, humiliating her and abusing her based on her Adivasi Kol identity.

FIR Registration and Charges

In response to the allegations, Respondent No.2 filed a written complaint which led to the registration of First Information Report. The FIR charged Vishnu Sahu, Appellant No.1 and Appellants No.2 and 3 under Section 498A, Section 406 and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(iv) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Anticipatory Bail and Rejection

Vishnu Sahu and Appellants sought anticipatory bail. On 19th December, 2016, the court granted interim protection and adjourned the matter. However, on 20th January, 2017, the anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Additional Judicial Commissioner and cited the serious nature of the allegations under the SC/ST Act.

Cognizance Order

On 13th January, 2019, the Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance of the matter against Vishnu Sahu and the Appellants in SC/ST Case. The Appellants initially sought the quashing of the FIR before the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition but later amended the petition to challenge the cognizance Order.

High Court’s Impugned Judgment

The High Court, in its Impugned Judgment, did not acknowledge the issue of whether the FIR was fit to be quashed. Instead, it focused on the validity of the cognizance Order and observed that the prima facie material against the Appellants had not been disclosed. The High Court set aside the cognizance Order and remitted the matter to the Trial Court to reconsider the issue afresh with proper disclosure of material evidence.

Appellants’ Challenge before the Supreme Court

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellants restricted their challenge to the remand order and did not seek to quash the FIR itself. They contended that the High Court should not have remanded the matter and that the disclosure of prima facie material against the Appellants was necessary.

The following issues were also addressed in Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand 2025:

• Whether a Magistrate's Order Taking Cognizance Requires Explicit Reasons: The primary issue was whether the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case can be faulted for not providing explicit reasons. The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the decision of the Magistrate can be challenged merely because it lacks a detailed explanation.
• The Requirement for Disclosure of Prima Facie Material in the Cognizance Order: The Court in Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand examined the issue whether the Trial Court was required to disclose the prima facie material against the accused at the stage of taking cognizance
• Interference by Higher Courts with Magistrate's Orders: The Apex Court also addressed the issue of whether the High Court can interfere with the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance especially when the order is not reasoned but is based on prima facie materials such as the case diary.
• Nature of Judicial Scrutiny in Cognizance Orders: Lastly, the Supreme Court also dealt with the broader issue of the scope of judicial scrutiny over the decision of the Magistrate to take cognizance.

Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand 2025 Legal Provisions

Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code played an important role in Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand 2025. The following is the analysis of this provision:

Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 204 (Now Section 227 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provision pertains to the issue of issuing summons by a Magistrate. It was relevant in this case to determine whether explicit reasons are required for the Magistrate’s order when summoning the accused.

Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand 2025 Judgment and Impact

On 23rd April, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand allowed the appeal filed by the Appellants and set aside the decision of the Jharkhand High Court. The High Court had interfered with the cognizance order of the Trial Court which was passed based on prima facie materials, despite the order not being a reasoned one.

Magistrate Order and Prima Facie Case

The Court in Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand reiterated that the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of a police report does not require explicit reasons if the Magistrate has formed a finding that a prima facie case exists based on the case records. It highlighted that such an order cannot be criticized solely for lacking detailed reasoning provided the Magistrate has reviewed the materials and concluded that an offence has occurred.

Reference to Previous Judgments

The Supreme Court in Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand referred to Bhushan Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (2012), highlighting that the order of the Magistrate under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code does not need to state explicit reasons when issuing summons as long as the Magistrate has considered the accusations and materials filed with the police report. The Court also referred to State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019) which held that the Magistrate is not required to provide reasons at the stage of issuing summons.

Application of Legal Principles

In applying the law to the Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand case, the Supreme Court noted that the Additional Judicial Commissioner correctly reviewed the available materials before taking cognizance. The Commissioner assessed whether an offence had been committed and identified the individuals involved.

Thus, the Supreme Court in Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand concluded that the cognizance order dated 13th June, 2019 was in accordance with the law and should not have been interfered with by the High Court. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the High Court's decision was set aside.

Conclusion

In Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand 2025 the Supreme Court on 23rd April, 2025, allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's decision. It reaffirmed that the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance does not require explicit reasons if a prima facie case is established based on the materials available. The Court highlighted that interference by higher courts in such matters was unwarranted when the Magistrate had properly considered the case records.