2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J
Santosh Kaur – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-29524-2015(O&M)

A complaint seeking to reopen issues already adjudicated and finalised, including rejection of a Section 319 Cr.P.C. application, and which would subject the accused to double jeopardy, is liable to be dismissed.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 148, 149, 120-B - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 27 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Constitution of India - Article 20(2) - Summoning of accused - Dismissal of complaint - Magistrate's power to summon - Principle of double jeopardy - Finality of earlier proceedings - At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is required to examine only whether a prima facie case is made out, but where the earlier proceedings have culminated in a final judgment and the issue of summoning certain accused has been conclusively determined, the same cannot be reopened through a fresh complaint. (Paras 10, 13, 17-22)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of offence - Cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender - However, where the Court of competent jurisdiction has already taken cognizance and adjudicated upon the matter, subjecting the same accused to a second trial for the same offence would be barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution. (Paras 15, 22)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Summoning of accused - Applicability of Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Where an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed and the order has attained finality, the complainant cannot be permitted to reagitate the same issue by filing a fresh complaint. (Paras 17, 18, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Santosh Kaur, filed a criminal complaint against Manjit Singh, Jaspal Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Balla, Balwinder Kaur and Sandeep Kaur for the murder of her son Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, allegedly an honour killing. The police had earlier registered FIR No.80 dated 11.08.2009 and filed a charge-sheet only against Manjit Singh and Jaspal Singh, placing the other three in Column No.II. The petitioner's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the three was dismissed, and the order attained finality. The trial against Manjit Singh and Jaspal Singh resulted in their conviction. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present complaint against all five accused, which was dismissed by the Magistrate. The present revision petition challenges that dismissal.

Findings of Court:
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the order of the Magistrate did not warrant interference. The Court found that the earlier proceedings had attained finality, the issue of summoning the three accused had been conclusively determined, and subjecting the already convicted accused to a second trial would be barred by double jeopardy. The Court also noted that the Magistrate had considered the earlier proceedings and was justified in declining to summon the accused.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Magistrate could dismiss the complaint based on the earlier proceedings, whether the principle of double jeopardy barred the second prosecution, and whether the petitioner could reagitate the issue of summoning the three accused after the dismissal of the Section 319 application had attained finality.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that where a complaint seeks to reopen issues that have already been adjudicated and have attained finality, and where the accused would be subjected to double jeopardy, the Magistrate is justified in dismissing the complaint. The Court emphasized that the criminal process should not be used as a tool of oppression and that courts must protect the innocent from unwarranted prosecution.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.