B. Chandrika vs Santhosh & Ors on 21 November, 2013
12. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate
on the protest petition has taken the cognizance and
thereafter he has examined the complainant as C.W.1
and one witness as C.W.2 and after considering the
evidence and the complaint, he has passed the
impugned order. Even though in the decision in the
case of B. Chandrika vs. Santhosh and Anr. cited supra
at para 6, it is specifically stated that, the protest
petition has to satisfy the ingredients of complaint
before the Magistrate takes the cognizance under
Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., but when the complaint is
13
already there before the Court and it is considered to be
part and parcel of the proceedings, under such
circumstances, it can be looked into by the Court for
either accepting the 'B' report or for rejecting. Be that
as it may. By close reading of the decision of the Apex
Court, it is clear that Magistrate can take cognizance
either on the complaint or on protest petition on same
or similar allegation. In that light, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is not correct. Be
that as it may. When the Magistrate has already
recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and
the witnesses and after application of mind has taken
the cognizance, under such circumstances, the
petitioners will be having an opportunity under the
subsequent provisions of Cr.P.C. to cross-examine the
said witness and even they can also ask for discharge if
the ingredients are not going to be satisfied. Under such
circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for
14
the petitioners does not appears to be acceptable in law
and the same is rejected.