KANTA BHATNAGAR, J.— In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated January 24, 1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bikaner by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against two of them viz. Narsinghlal and Smt. Nirmala under section 494 I.P.C. and against the remaining petitioner u/s. 494 read with Sec. 114 I.P.C.

2. The legality of the order has been challenged on the ground that the Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner on a second complaint while the first complaint was alive. Another ground of attack is that out of the thirteen petitioners except Narsinghlal and Devkishan Devilal all had been discharged by the Court in which the first complaint was filed and that order had become final by the order of the revisional Court and as such the cognizance on the second complaint is illegal.

3. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to refer to certain relevant proceedings and dates regarding the two complaints.

4. The first complaint was lodged against the thirteen petitioners on November 9, 1981 in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. By the order dated August 2, 1982, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against petitioners Narsinghlal and Devkishan Devilal only for the offence u/s. 494 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate did not find sufficient material to proceed against the remaining eleven petitioners. On October 11, 1982 a revision petition by the complainant was filed in this Court in grievance to the aforesaid order dated August 2, 1982 by which the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer declined to take cognizance against the eleven petitioners. That revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn on December 8, 1982. Meanwhile, a complaint was filed by Smt. Santosh on November 17, 1982 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bikaner on the same grounds on which the first complaint was lodged but adding that the complainant had started living in her fathers house and had decided to permanently settle at Bikaner and therefore, under the provisions of Sec. 182 (2) Cr.P.C, that Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the petitioner did not wish to proceed with the complaint filed by the father in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Barmer and that he will get those proceedings quashed there. The Court heard the complainant on the question of jurisdiction of the Court because there was one complaint already pending before some competent Court. As the order sheet dated January 15, 1983 shows the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he would withdraw the proceedings at the Barmer Court and would file the certified copy of that order. He was granted time for the purpose and it was ordered that the witnesses of the complainant would be examined thereafter. When the proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Barmer were going on July 28, 1983 the complainant remained absent. The learned counsel for the complainant pleaded no instructions. The learned Magistrate discharged the petitioners Narsinghlal and Devkishan Devilal u/s. 494 I.P.C. and u/s. 494/114 I.P.C. On August 29, 1983, the learned counsel for the complainant filed the copy of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Barmer and submitted that the complaint in that Court had been withdrawn. The complainant thereafter, examined her witnesses. By the order dated January 24, 1984, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner took cognizance against Narsinghlal and Smt. Nirmala u/s. 494 I.P.C. and against the remaining petitioners for that offence with the aid of Sec. 114 I.P.C. It is this order which has been challenged in the present petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The pertinent question arising in the case is that when one complaint was alive, no court had jurisdiction to entertain the second complaint. It has also been emphasized that once the Court, after

Click Here to Read the rest of this document