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 Section 193 of Cr.P.C is crucial in determining the jurisdiction of the court.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 26.7.2021, passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Criminal Revision No. 87/2018, whereby the order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class [in short JMFC], Mandsaur in Criminal complaint No.0/2018 'Ismail Vs. Raees and others' rejecting the unregistered criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.1 against the applicants and respondents No. 2 & 3 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Court of JMFC, Mandsaur for adjudicating the same on merits.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Respondent No.1/complainant Ismail S/O Ibrahim filed an application before the Court of Tehsildar Mandsaur for cancellation of an order of mutation, passed in respect of land bearing survey No.154/2 (0.540 hectares) situated in village Tigariya, Tehsil & District Mandsaur, stating therein that Anwar prepared a forged Hibanama of his deceased brother Ibrahim s/O Ibrahim for taking advantage of the same name of the respondent No.1 and on the basis of the said Hibanama, he with the help of Liyakat, Shakeel and Raees Mansoori got the above land mutated in his name. On the basis of said complaint, Tehsildar vide order dated 17.8.2017 cancelled the aforesaid order of mutation passed in favour of Anwar and directed the Police to take appropriate action in the matter. In pursuance of which on the basis of the written complaint made by respondent no. 1, an FIR bearing Crime No.123/2007 was registered at P.S. Nai Abadi, Mandsaur against Anwar, Liyakat, Shakeel, and Raees Mansoori. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC against all the above four accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 120-B of IPC, and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur.

3. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed a criminal complaint u/S 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of JMFC, Mandsaur against the applicants as well as respondents No.2 & 3 for impleading them as accused in the aforesaid criminal case stating therein that applicants, as well as respondents No. 2 & 3, were assisted accused persons in preparing forged Hibbanama and getting the land mutated in accused Anwar's name and were involved in the crime and police intentionally not taking any action against them. Learned JMFC, vide order dated 11.7.2018 dismissed his complaint on the ground that cognizance of offence cannot be taken twice. Being aggrieved by the said order respondent No.1 preferred a criminal revision bearing No.87/2018 before the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, which was allowed vide order dated 26.7.2021 and after setting aside the order passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, the matter was remanded back to the Court of JMFC, with a direction that Magistrate should decide the criminal complaint on merits. Being aggrieved by the same this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Court of JMFC, Mandsaur taking cognizance in the matter has committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, then the Court of JMFC cannot take cognizance again. Learned revisional Court without appreciating the judgment passed by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmpal and others Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 3 SCC 306, has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable. Respondent No.1 ought to have filed the protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate instead of filing a separate private complaint. He further submits that at the present stage only remedy is to approach the Sessions Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the present petition is liable to be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for th