Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Nirmal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
ORDER :
Sudesh Bansal, J. - Petitioner filed instant criminal misc. petition, assailing the order dated 12.01.2010 passed in revision petition No.144/2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing his revision petition and affirming the order dated 01.12.2005 in case No. 5337/2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.11, Jaipur (City), Smt. Chanda Devi v. Nirmal Singh whereby cognizance for offence under Section 447 IPC has been taken against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the cognizance has been taken on the criminal complaint filed by non-petitioner No.2 Smt. Chanda Devi on 05.10.2005. Whereas prior to that non-petitioner No.2 filed one more complaint, which was sent for investigation to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after investigation, Police submitted negative final report, which was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate. Hence, on the similar set of facts, the cognizance taken in the second complaint, stands illegal and contrary to the mandate of law.
In Addition, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the complainant Smt. Chanda Devi herself did not appear to make her
Cognizance cannot be taken on a second complaint based on similar facts after a negative report on the first complaint, as it leads to jurisdictional errors and manifest injustice.
(1) Issuance of Process – Section 204 requires sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, which would mean the Court has to examine existence of sufficient grounds to proceed against the a....
Cognizance of an offence can only be taken once, and the process of summoning other persons involved in the crime is a part of the process of taking cognizance. The interpretation of Section 190 and ....
A Magistrate must provide clear reasoning when taking cognizance of offences against fewer accused than those charged, reinforcing the need for judicial transparency.
A Magistrate's order taking cognizance must be a reasoned one, reflecting an application of mind to the facts and law, and must not be cryptic or irrational.
A Magistrate must apply judicial mind when taking cognizance of an offence; failure to do so, especially through mechanical processes, renders the order invalid and subject to quashing.
A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the same offence multiple times once it has been committed to the Sessions Court, affirming that further cognizance without proper cause is legally impermissibl....
Cognizance of offences cannot be revisited after an initial order, unless new evidence emerges, upholding the procedural integrity of prior judicial findings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
