Cognizance of offences cannot be revisited after an initial order, unless new evidence emerges, upholding the procedural integrity of prior judicial findings.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Mahajan, J.

1. The present petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 19.11.2024 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Cr Rev Nos. 6042023 and 357/2024.

2. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ had dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioners and upheld the order dated 10.10.2023, in FIR No. 75/2019 (‘FIR’), registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the petitioners and their son, and issued summons to them.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. On 18.05.2019, FIR was registered against the petitioners and their son for the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC on a complaint made by Respondent No.2/ complainant. The petitioner Amrita is the mother-in-law of the complainant and the petitioner Pradip is the father-in-law of the complainant.

3.2. After investigation, on 25.02.2021, chargesheet was filed only against the son of the petitioners and the petitioners were placed in Column 12. It is mentioned in the chargesheet that no evidence or incriminating material was found against the petitioners and it did not appear that they were instigating their son to treat the complainant with cruelty.

3.3. The matter was taken up by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.06.2021 and notice was issued to the accused.

3.4. Subsequently, protest petition was filed on behalf of the complainant alleging that the investigation was unfair and, inter alia, seeking that cognizance may be taken under Section 190(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

3.5. In the reply filed by the Investigating Officer to the protest petition, it is mentioned that the complainant had stayed at her maternal home and with her husband for the most part and stayed with the petitioners on only specific occasions. It was further mentioned that the audio recordings provided by the complainant did not reflect that the petitioners were instigating their son to commit cruelty.

3.6. By order dated 10.10.2023, the learned Magistrate found that merely notice was issued by way of order dated 21.06.2021 and no formal order was passed for taking cognizance. It was observed that sufficient material was found to proceed further against the petitioners as specific allegations had been made against them, whereby, summons were issued to the petitioners as well as their son.

3.7. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ upheld the order dated 10.10.2023 and dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioners.

3.8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions respectively.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order as well as the order dated 10.10.2023 are perverse and the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the said orders amount to recognizance of offence already taken on 2106.2021 whereof notice/ summon was issued only to accused mentioned in column no. 11, that is, the son of the petitioners who is the husband of the complainant.

5. He submitted that the learned Predecessor Magistrate had taken cognizance by order dated 21.06.2021 after going through the complete charge sheet and no cognizance was taken against the petitioners as no material evidence was found against them