Orissa High Court Declares Repeated Cognizance in Protest Petition as “Illegal and Unconstitutional” – Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Twice on Same Offence After Committal to the Sessions Court

Court’s Decision:

The Orissa High Court quashed the Magistrate’s order for taking cognizance for the second time on a protest petition, stating it was an “illegal exercise of jurisdiction.” The Court held that once the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate is “functus officio” and cannot take cognizance again on the same offence.

Facts:

Two individuals were brutally assaulted by a group of people using lethal weapons such as a sword and billhook, leading to their deaths. An FIR was lodged against 14 accused, including a sitting MLA and former Minister, who was accused of threatening to kill one of the victims four days before the incident. The investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet against 13 accused, excluding the MLA, stating that allegations against him could not be substantiated. Dissatisfied, the informant filed a protest petition, leading to further investigation. The subsequent police report confirmed no complicity of the MLA, resulting in the filing of a second protest petition by the informant’s brother after the informant’s death.

Issues:

1. Whether the jurisdictional Magistrate can take cognizance of offences for a second time on a protest petition against a person not charge-sheeted after the case is committed to the Court of Sessions.
2. Whether the actions taken by the Magistrate in entertaining the second protest petition post-committal are without jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the Magistrate becomes functus officio once cognizance is taken and the case is committed to the Court of Sessions. It was contended that the second protest petition should not have been entertained without valid reasons, especially when the earlier protest petition had already been investigated. The petitioner relied on various judgments to assert that cognizance of the same offence cannot be taken multiple times.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent contended that filing a second protest petition is permissible under the law, particularly when the initial investigation was biased. The respondent argued that since the first protest petition was not properly investigated, the second petition was justified. It was further submitted that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain such petitions if there are new materials or grounds, as laid down by the Supreme Court.

Analysis of the Law:

The High Court analyzed the provisions under Sections 173, 190, and 319 of the CrPC. It noted that while the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation even after taking cognizance, such power must be exercised with caution and reasoned orders. Further, once a case is committed to the Sessions Court, the Magistrate cannot entertain a protest petition or take cognizance again, as it would lead to an “inconsistent and parallel jurisdiction.”

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referred to the decisions in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, and Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited, which emphasized that once cognizance is taken and the case is committed, only the Sessions Court has the authority to summon additional accused or take cognizance based on new evidence.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court held that the Magistrate’s action of taking cognizance for the second time on a protest petition, without rejecting or disagreeing with the police report, was legally untenable. The Court observed that the Magistrate’s role is limited once the case is committed to the Sessions Court, and any action post-committal should be undertaken by the Sessions Judge.

Conclusion:

The High Court quashed the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance for the second time and held that such an exercise is “contrary to the scheme of the CrPC.” The High Court concluded that any addition of new accused should have been addressed through the Sessions Court under Section 319 CrPC, and not through a second cognizance by the Magistrate.

Implications:

The ruling clarifies the limitations on the power of Magistrates post-committal and the proper procedure for addressing grievances through the Sessions Court. This decision reaffirms the settled position that cognizance can only be taken once and subsequent proceedings must follow the proper legal channels to avoid jurisdictional conflicts.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Denies Bail in Narcotics Case Due to Commercial Quantity of Heroin Recovered from Foreign National; Holds Compliance with Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) of 1985 Not Established