https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301441 Punjab and Haryana HC held that once cognizance had already been taken on the original complaint, a fresh or additional complaint on the same allegations was impermissible during the pendency of the trial. If the complainant sought to add further accused on the basis of material emerging in evidence, the proper course was to invoke Section 319 CrPC at the appropriate stage. The second cognizance taken through the additional complaint, and the consequential summoning order founded on it, could not be sustained. The court therefore quashed the additional complaint and the summoning order in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. en-us Thu, 06 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Apr 2022 20:58:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301441 Punjab and Haryana HC held that once cognizance had already been taken on the original complaint, a fresh or additional complaint on the same allegations was impermissible during the pendency of the trial. If the complainant sought to add further accused on the basis of material emerging in evidence, the proper course was to invoke Section 319 CrPC at the appropriate stage. The second cognizance taken through the additional complaint, and the consequential summoning order founded on it, could not be sustained. The court therefore quashed the additional complaint and the summoning order in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301441