Cognizance of an offence in a criminal case can only be taken once; a Magistrate misapplying this principle during subsequent cognizance is legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This application U/S. 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the “Code”) by the Petitioners seeks to challenge the order passed on 16.05.2022 by learned JMFC, Rajnagar, Kendrapara in 1CC Case No. 6 of 2022 taking cognizance of offences punishable U/Ss. 498- A/294/323/313/328/417/506/34 of IPC read with Section 4 DP Act.

2. It appears from the record that pursuant to an FIR, Rajnagar PS Case No. 283 of 2021 was registered against the Petitioners for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 498-A/294/323/307/417/ 506/34 of IPC read with Section 4 DP Act and the matter was accordingly investigated into, resulting in submission of charge-sheet against the Petitioners for offences punishable U/Ss. 498-A/294/323/506/ 406/34 of read with Section 4 DP Act. Accordingly, cognizance was taken for aforesaid charge sheet offences and the learned JMFC, Rajnagar, Kendrapara by an order passed on 12.04.2022 in G.R. Case No.331 of 2021 framed charge against the Petitioners for aforesaid offences. While the matter stood thus, on 20.04.2022 the Informant in Rajnagar PS Case No.283 of 2021 being dissatisfied with the result of the investigation filed a protest petition in 1CC Case No. 6 of 2022 and the learned NGN-cum-JMFC, Rajnagar, Kendrapara recorded the initial statement of the complainant and the statement of three witnesses in the enquiry U/S. 202 Cr.P.C. After being satisfied with the materials placed on record in the complaint together with initial statement and statement of witnesses in 1CC Case No.06 of 2022, the learned NGN-cum-JMFC, Rajnagar, Kendrapara again took cognizance of offences punishable U/Ss.498-A/ 294/ 323/313/328/417/506/34 of read with Section 4 DP Act by the impugned order which is under challenge in this CRLMC.

3. Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that law is very well settled that cognizance of offence can be taken once in a case, but not twice and, thereby, the impugned order passed by the learned NGN-cum-JMFC, Rajnagar, Kendrapara being unsustainable in the eye of law is required to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for OP No.2 has submitted that since the Investigating Agency has not investigated the matter properly necessiting the Informant to file the complaint in which the learned NGN-cum-JMFC, Rajnagar, Kendrapara after recording the initial statement of the complainant and statement of witnesses in enquiry U/S. 202 Cr.P.C. has considered the material placed on record in proper prospective and, thereby, taking cognizance of offences which was earlier not taken because of the improper investigation cannot be legally questioned. Mr. Mishra, accordingly, has submitted that there is no question of illegality being committed by the learned NGN-cum-JMFC, Rajnagar, Kendrapara and the impugned order, therefore, cannot be set aside or varied. Mr. Mishra, has, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the CRLMC.

5. Be it noted, the matter was earlier heard by this Court, but today the same was listed under the heading of “to be mentioned” on being mentioned by learned counsel for OP No. 2 to further argue the matter.

6. In criminal jurisprudence, the role and duty of a Magistrate competent to take cognizance of offence on receipt of police report U/S. 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( In short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been objectively outlined by the Cr.P.C since such Magistrate is normally the interface between the investigating wing and the Court at first point of time irrespective of the offence being triable by Magistrate or Court of Session,but not for an offence under Special Act. One or more of t