Magistrate cannot take cognizance twice for same incident in two different proceedings: Gujarat HC

Gujarat High Court has set aside non-bailable warrants issued by a Kadi Magistrate in a 2006 private complaint, ruling that a magistrate cannot take cognizance twice for the same incident when the complaint was verbatim identical to an FIR already registered in 2004, followed by a chargesheet and framed charges.

The first FIR lodged before the private complaint, clearly shows that both complaints were filed by the same complainant, for the same incident, against the same five accused persons. Both complaints relate to the same acts and same allegations

The court emphasised a settled legal principle: a magistrate does not take cognizance of an ‘offence’ twice. A second complaint for the same incident is generally not maintainable unless it discloses a distinct offence or introduces new material absent in the first. In this case, the 2006 private complaint mirrored the 2004 FIR against the same accused, involving the alleged death of Jenaji on March 20, 2004.

The high court noted alternative remedies under CrPC section 216 allows courts to alter or add charges post-witness examination before judgment, while section 319 empowers arraigning additional accused if evidence warrants. 

In a criminal revision application, the high court observed that the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Kalol took cognizance of the private complaint filed by complainant Jhala Kuvarsinh, which was verbatim identical to the earlier FIR lodged at Kadi police station. The court quashed the warrants issued against five accused persons for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the IPC, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

The incident stemmed from allegations that Jenaji and the complainant were traveling on a scooter when five accused—armed with a spade and sticks—intercepted them, assaulted Jenaji, and ran a tractor over him and the scooter, causing instant death. The initial FIR was registered under murder and rioting sections.

Later the Investigation was transferred to the Local Crime Branch (LCB), Mehsana, at the complainant's request. Based on post-mortem reports, scene panchnama, mechanical inspection, and witness statements, the LCB concluded Jenaji's death resulted from a vehicular accident involving an Eicher tractor and the scooter. The chargesheet was filed against the tracter driver Bharat alleged to have caused the accident.

The LCB later submitted a report to Kalol magistrate recommending deletion of murder and unlawful assembly sections, adding rash driving and causing death by negligence charges. Charges were framed accordingly in the 2004 case, which included the same witnesses listed in the 2006 complaint—their statements already recorded.