Abuse of process in second complaint: fresh cognizance on identical facts barred where Section 319 remedy exists.

A fresh complaint based on the same alleged offences was treated as an abuse of process where the pending complaint could, on evidence, support summoning additional persons under Section 319 CrPC. The court reasoned that cognizance attaches to the offence, not to every offender being identified at the outset, and that a second cognizance on identical facts would bypass the evidentiary safeguard available in the existing trial. In these circumstances, the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC may be used to prevent prejudice to the accused and to stop duplicative proceedings. The second proceeding was therefore held not maintainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second complaint and the process issued thereon, concerning the same alleged offences and invoking the Court's inherent jurisdiction, were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process in view of the remedy available under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The basis of cognizance is the offence itself, not the identification of every offender at the outset. Where a complaint already pending can, on evidence, lead to the summoning of additional persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the institution of a fresh complaint on the same allegations against persons whose role was later discovered is unnecessary. In such a situation, permitting a second cognizance on identical facts, without the safeguard of evidence in the pending trial, would prejudice the accused and amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked to prevent such abuse.

Conclusion: The second proceeding was not maintainable and was liable to be quashed.

---