Final cognizance orders cannot be reopened before the Magistrate, and further investigation cannot become piecemeal re-investigation.

Once a cognizance order has attained finality, fresh applications before the Magistrate cannot be used to reopen the same objections under a general liberty to raise other defences later. The text also states that the criminal procedure scheme does not permit re-investigation or indefinite piecemeal reservation of investigation against selected accused; only further investigation on the statutory footing is contemplated, and exceptional directions for de novo investigation lie with higher courts. On the stated facts, the police report, witness statements and case-diary material were sufficient for cognizance, and no jurisdictional illegality was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicants could maintain fresh applications before the Magistrate to re-agitate objections against the cognizance order after the earlier challenge had attained finality; (ii) Whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance on the basis of the police report and the material collected when investigation against the applicants had been kept pending.

Issue (i): Whether the applicants could maintain fresh applications before the Magistrate to re-agitate objections against the cognizance order after the earlier challenge had attained finality.

Analysis: The earlier order taking cognizance had already been challenged in revision and in a petition under inherent jurisdiction, and the later petition was withdrawn. The liberty mentioned in that order was only to raise the defence of alibi at the proper stage, not to reopen the same objections before the committal court or the Magistrate. A subordinate court has no inherent power to revisit an order that has already attained finality, and the High Court's inherent power cannot be delegated by granting general liberty to re-agitate settled objections.

Conclusion: The fresh applications were not maintainable, and the challenge to the cognizance order could not be reopened before the Magistrate.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance on the basis of the police report and the material collected when investigation against the applicants had been kept pending.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits completion of investigation and then filing of a final report, with only further investigation under the residuary power; it does not permit keeping part of the investigation indefinitely pending against some accused as a matter of right. Re-investigation or de novo investigation is not permissible before the Magistrate, and only higher courts may direct such exceptional relief. In the present facts, the material before the Magistrate included the FIR, witness statements and other case-diary material, and the plea of alibi was not conclusive. The report could therefore be acted upon, and the Magistrate's cognizance was not shown to suffer from jurisdictional error or illegality.

Conclusion: The Magistrate was competent to take cognizance, and the cognizance order did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found devoid of merit, and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court was not invoked in favour of the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an order taking cognizance has attained finality, it cannot be reopened by fresh applications before the subordinate court under the guise of liberty, and the power of further investigation under the criminal procedure code does not authorize re-investigation or piecemeal reservation of investigation against selected accused before the Magistrate.

---