JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.6.05 passed by the Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he had taken cognizance for offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC against the petitioners They have also challenged the order dated 20 9.05 passed by the Special Court (Fake Currency) Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Mr. Shashi Paliwal filed a report before the Police Station, Sadar, Jaipur on 18.7.03 whereby he alleged that one M.P. Singh, who happens to be the Regional Manager of Suman Motors Ltd., was given an amount of Rs. 7 lacs by the complainant for allotment of a plot but despite depositing of the amount, no plot was allotted to him. The amount has not been refunded to him. On the basis of the said report, the police registered a formal FIR. FIR No. 278/03 for offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and commenced the investigation. However, after a thorough investigation on 11.12.04, the police filed a negative final report as the police found the case to be of civil nature. The police also discovered that an amount of Rs. 3.75 lacs was already refunded to the complainant during 2.9.04 to 29.11.04. For the rest of the amount post dated cheques were also given. However, vide order dated 26.2.05 the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, they preferred a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. However, case was subsequently transferred to the Court of Special Judge, (Fake Currency) Court, Jaipur City, who vide his order dated 20.9.05 dismissed the revision petition. Hence this misc. petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Ravi Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order dated 22.6 05 is a highly cryptic order. However, case was subsequently transferred to the Court of Special Judge, (Fake Currency) Court, Jaipur City, who vide his order dated 20.9.05 dismissed the revision petition. Hence this misc. petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Ravi Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order dated 22.6 05 is a highly cryptic order. Although a negative F.R. had been submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate did not discuss the said negative F.R. Moreover, the learned Magistrate did not give any reasons for disagreeing with the negative F.R. relying on the case of Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993 SC (Cri) 376) and upon the case of Gopal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, ( 2005(10) RDD 4197 ) the learned counsel has argued that while taking the cognizance after submission of negative F.R., the Magistrate is legally bound to give reasons for disagreeing with the negative F.R. Since the Magistrate has failed to do so, the cognizance order is not a valid order in the eyes of the law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, the learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently argued that the Magistrate is not bound by the negative F.R. given by the police. Therefore, the Magistrate is free to take cognizance without having to discuss the negative F.R. He has further contended that even on an earlier occasion, the petitioners had challenged the FIR by filing a Criminal Misc. Petition before this Court which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.4.04. Therefore, the present petition is not even maintainable. He has further contended that there are other cases pending against the petitioners where similar allegations have been levelled against them. 5. We have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that where there is a wrong there is a remedy. Therefore, the accused person is certainly entitled to challenge, if he so desires, that a wrong is being committed against him for the time of the filing of the FIR and at different stages of a criminal trial, provided a remedy is granted to him by the law initially the petitioner No. 4 alongwith one Mukhtyar Hussain, had challenged the FIR and had prayed that the FIR registered against them should be quashed. What is presently challenged, before this Court, is not the FIR, but the cognizance Order dated 22.6.05. Therefore, merely because this Court had declined to quash the FIR vide its order dated 9.4.04, would not preclude and cannot prevent the petitioners from challenging the cognizance order. After all, cognizance order is a final order and can be challenged initially by filing a revision petition and, if permissible, a miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. thereafter. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that this petition is not maintainable on the ground that on a previous occasion this Court had refused to quash the FIR is meritless. 7. Taking of a cognizance is not a mere formality but has serious consequences for the accused persons. A Magistrate is not bound by the negative F.R. But, in case a negative F.R. has been submitted by the police, the Magistrate is legally required to discuss and give reasons for disagreeing with the negative F.R while passing the cognizance order. There are various reasons why a speaking order needs to be passed by the learned Magistrate. Firstly, the accused has the right to know as to what exactly weighed with the Court when the Court disagreed with the negative F.R. The giving of a reasoned order is not only part and parcel of the principles of natural justice, but also emanates form Article 21 of the Constitution. The fact that the accused has a right to know emerges from the concept of due process of law, which is so essential and en-grained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In case the personal liberty of a person is to be disturbed or adversely effected, the person has the right to know on what basis his personal liberty is being cribbed, cabined and confined. Secondly, since the cognizance order is a revisionable order, the revision Court and the superior courts thereafter also need to know the reasons which weighed with the Magistrate while taking the cognizance and while disagreeing with the negative F.R. A cryptic or a silent order is neither beneficial for the accused nor for the superior courts. Thirdly, it is a settled principle of law that justice should not only be done, but must appear to have been done. Thirdly, it is a settled principle of law that justice should not only be done, but must appear to have been done. In case people are not convinced that justice has been done to them, they are likely to lose their faith in the judicial process. The loss of faith is likely to adversely damage the reputation of the judiciary. The judicial officers are not expected to undermine the faith of the people through their inactions. Keeping these fundamental reasons in mind, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) and this Court in the case of Gopal Sharma (supra) and in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2006(1) ILR (Raj.) 93) has repeatedly held that the Magistrate must state reasons for disagreeing with the negative F.R. while taking the cognizance. 8. A bare perusal of the cognizance order reveals that the learned Magistrate has noted as under : The counsel for the complainant is present. Arguments on the F.R. has been heard. The record has been considered. The F.R., the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Shri Shashi Kumar Paliwal and other documents available on record make out a prima facie case against Mukhtyar Hussain, Surendra M. Khandar, Prafful M. Khandar, Bharti S. Khandar, Javed Akhtar and Vijay Kumar. Therefore, cognizance against accused persons Mukhtyar Hussain, Surendra M. Khandar, Prafful M. Khandar, Bharti S. Khandar, Javed Akhtar and Vijay Kumar is taken for offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Let the case be registered. The complainant is directed to give his list of witnesses as well as to submit his copy of summons. The accused shall be arrested by an arrest warrant. The case shall be listed on 27.7.2005 for the appearance of the accused persons. 9. A bare perusal of this order clearly reveals firstly, that the Magistrate has mentioned the existence of a negative F.R. He also mentioned the existence of F.I.R. as well as the statement of the complainant Shashi Kumar Paliwal. However, he has not given a single reason for disagreeing with the negative F.R., except to say that "it is unacceptable. 9. A bare perusal of this order clearly reveals firstly, that the Magistrate has mentioned the existence of a negative F.R. He also mentioned the existence of F.I.R. as well as the statement of the complainant Shashi Kumar Paliwal. However, he has not given a single reason for disagreeing with the negative F.R., except to say that "it is unacceptable. Thus a bare perusal of this order does not reveal the factors which weighed in the mind of the learned Magistrate for disagreeing with the negative F.R. Despite the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the learned Magistrate must mention the reasons tor disagreeing with the negative F.R., the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been followed by the learned Magistrate. Even this Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal (supra) has also held that the learned Magistrates are duty bound to give reasons while disagreeing with the negative F.R. The learned Magistrate has failed to give reasons. 10. A detailed discussion of the documents has been done by the Revisional Court. However, it is not for the Revisional Court to fill in the lacunae present in the cognizance order. In the absence of any reason being given by the learned Magistrate, the Revisional Court cannot presume the factors which weighed in the mind of the learned Magistrate while passing the cognizance order. Therefore, the Revisional Court was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 20 9.05. 11. Considering the cryptic nature of the cognizance order dated 22.6.05, considering the legal requirement that a speaking order is to be passed by the learned Magistrate while disagreeing with the negative F.R., we have no option but to quash and set aside the order dated 22.6.05 and 20.9.05. This Court remands the case back to the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, to pass a fresh cognizance order in accordance with law, after discussing the evidence available on record and after giving cogent reasons for disagreeing with the negative F.R. filed by the police within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 12. With these observations this appeal is allowed.Petition allowed. *******