TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the Court of Session can take cognizance of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code after the Judicial Magistrate has refused cognizance on a complainant's application while committing the case; and (ii) whether a second application before the Court of Session for the same relief is maintainable when the Magistrate's refusal was not challenged.
Issue (i): whether the Court of Session can take cognizance of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code after the Judicial Magistrate has refused cognizance on a complainant's application while committing the case.
Analysis: Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence upon a police report, while Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enables the Court of Session to take cognizance only after committal by the Magistrate and to act as a court of original jurisdiction. The governing principle is that cognizance of an offence can be taken only once. Where the Magistrate merely performs a passive committal function, the Sessions Court may take cognizance on committal. But where the Magistrate has actively applied his mind and refused to take cognizance against certain persons, a fresh cognizance by the Sessions Court on the same material is ordinarily impermissible. The earlier refusal here was not a passive forwarding order; it was a reasoned rejection after hearing the parties.
Conclusion: the Sessions Court was not justified in taking cognizance again against the appellants on the same application and material.
Issue (ii): whether a second application before the Court of Session for the same relief is maintainable when the Magistrate's refusal was not challenged.
Analysis: The Magistrate's order refusing cognizance against the appellants was passed after due consideration and was amenable to revision. Since that order was not challenged, the complainant could not secure the same relief before the Sessions Court by filing a fresh application. The proper course was to challenge the Magistrate's order in revision. Although the Sessions Court had revisional powers, the impugned order was not sustained on that basis in the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion: the second application was not maintainable to obtain the same relief after the Magistrate's unchallenged refusal.
Final Conclusion: the appeal failed because the Sessions Court's assumption of cognizance against the appellants on the complainant's second application could not be sustained in law, and the High Court's order declining interference was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: once a Magistrate has actively taken a decision on cognizance after applying his mind, the same matter cannot ordinarily be reopened before the Court of Session by a fresh application to obtain another cognizance order on identical material; cognizance of an offence is taken only once.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
