Inherent jurisdiction cannot revive an abandoned challenge, and cognizance of the offence may extend to additional accused on police material.

A subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking the same relief was held not maintainable after an earlier revision under Section 397 CrPC had been dismissed as not pressed, because inherent jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be used to re-agitate an abandoned challenge without special circumstances. In a police-report case, cognizance is of the offence and not merely of the named accused; the Magistrate may proceed against additional persons disclosed by the investigation and commit the matter where the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Section 203 CrPC, which governs complaints, was inapplicable. The High Court's contrary view was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a subsequent petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be entertained for the same relief after an earlier revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been dismissed as not pressed. (ii) Whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and proceed against persons not named by the police report, and whether Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governed such a case.

Issue (i): Whether a subsequent petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be entertained for the same relief after an earlier revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been dismissed as not pressed.

Analysis: The earlier revisional challenge had been abandoned on merits being pressed, and no special circumstances were shown to justify a second attempt to obtain the same relief through inherent jurisdiction. The inherent power is to be exercised sparingly and cannot ordinarily be used to circumvent the limitations attached to revisional remedies or to re-agitate the same relief after such withdrawal or non-prosecution.

Conclusion: The subsequent petition under Section 482 was not maintainable for the same relief, and the High Court ought not to have entertained it.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and proceed against persons not named by the police report, and whether Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governed such a case.

Analysis: Cognizance is of the offence and not merely of the offenders. In a case instituted on a police report, if material collected during investigation shows involvement of persons not sent up by the police, the Magistrate is competent to proceed against them and commit the case where the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. The procedure under Section 203 applies to complaints to Magistrates and was inapplicable here; the reference to Section 203(2) was misconceived.

Conclusion: The Magistrate's order adding the offence and proceeding against the additional accused was lawful, and the High Court's contrary view was incorrect.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court order was set aside, and the committal and framing of charges were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report acts on the offence and may proceed against additional persons revealed by the material, while a subsequent invocation of inherent jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be used to revive the same challenge after an earlier revision on the same relief was not pressed.

---