judicious application of mind to the facts and circumstances of each case. Although, a meticulous examination of evidence is not required at the stage of taking cognizance, but the Magistrate must consider the case in a holistic manner. Piecemeal consideration of the evidence does not commensurate with the judicial vision. Hence, in case a FIR or a complaint is followed by a negative Final Report, which is subsequently followed by a protest petition, while allowing the protest petition, a Judicial Magistrate is legally bound to discuss the negative Final Report. Such a discussion is warranted for three reasons; firstly, the Principles of Natural Justice demand and dictate that any order adversely affecting a right should be a speaking order. Although a elaborate discussion may not be required, but the order must contain sufficient reasons showing the application of a judicious mind, for disagreeing with the negative Final Report. Secondly, since the cognizance order is a revisionable order, the Higher Judicial Authorities have a right to know the reasons, which weighed in the mind of the Judicial Magistrate for disagreeing with the negative Final Report. In the absence of such reasons, the Higher Judicial Authorities (the Sessions Court or the High Court) are left in the dark. Thirdly, it is a settled doctrine of law that ``justice should not only be done, but also must appear to be done. Therefore, the accused has a right to know the reasons why the learned Judicial Magistrate has disagreed with the negative Final Report submitted by the Police after a thorough investigation. In case, such reasons are not stated, alleged offender may find it difficulty to question the validity of the reasoning, hence a cryptic order is not a judicious order whereas cognizance order should always be a judicious order.
