Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would further submit that the law mandates notice on the victim and the Judicial Magistrate having found that the Petitioner is an interested person and a victim and on whose efforts, the case was registered and later transferred for further investigation, ought not to have taken cognizance of the final report without any notice being served on the Petitioner, when especially the persons against whom specific allegations having been made were dropped. The Judicial Magistrate erred in holding that since cognizance has already been taken on 27.12.2018, the belated protest application, dated 29.01.2019, is not maintainable. He would http://www.judis.nic.in further submit that the Judicial Magistrate also erred in rendering a finding that summoning of the additional accused is not proper at the stage when a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC is pending and that after cognizance has been taken, the Court is empowered to add additional accused only by way of Section 319 of Cr.PC.

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st Respondent Police would submit that though the names of the Respondents 2 to 5 found a place in the First Information Report, the 1st Respondent after conducting due investigation, finding no averments against the Respondents 2 to 5, had dropped their names in the final report and that the notice of closure was served on R.Ganesamoorthy, the defacto complainant, brother of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner had filed the protest application only on 29.1.2019 and the Judicial Magistrate, finding that cognizance has already been taken on 27.12.2018, had dismissed the protest petition, stating that it is not maintainable and that the Judicial Magistrate had found that if the protest petition is allowed, it would amount to setting aside or modifying its own order and thereby, had dismissed the protest petition.

are the questions to be decided in this application. As http://www.judis.nic.in already discussed and in view of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable High Court, the protest application should be decided while perusing the final report and taking cognizance. Once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, there cannot be second cognizance against additional accused, whose name found in the First Information Report, but if committed, the cognizance can be taken by the sessions Judge against additional accused. After cognizance has been taken, the Magistrate may add the additional accused by way of Section 319 of Cr.PC, which would come into operation in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence or treat the protest petition as a Private Complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC. In the present case on hand, the private complaint has already been separately filed by the Petitioner, which has been taken on file as Cr.MP.No.426 of 2019 and as such, the present protest petition is not maintainable and no separate order is necessary. Further, the reliefs prayed for in the protest application is not at all maintainable and without any basis. Added to that this Court has no jurisdiction to set aside its own order dated 27.12.2018. Since, the Private complaint is pending, this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. Considering all aspects, this Court finds that the present application is not maintainable, which is liable to be dismissed.

1. The reliefs prayed for in the present application are not maintainable.

2. No protest petition was filed or pending, while perusing the final report and taking cognizance on 27.12.2018.

3. Since cognizance had already been taken on 27.12.2018, the http://www.judis.nic.in belated protest application dated 29.01.2019 is not maintainable.