A Magistrate cannot review cognizance or add or subtract offences through a subsequent protest petition.

An FIR was lodged concerning an alleged incident on 3 May 2025 in which Akshay Singh, Shekhar Singh, and the applicant, Alpana Singh, were accused of breaking the informant’s house wall, abusing and threatening him, and causing physical injuries.

After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against Akshay Singh and Shekhar Singh but submitted a final report in favour of Alpana Singh for want of cogent evidence.

On 17 November 2025, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against Akshay Singh under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(2), and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and against Shekhar Singh under Sections 115(2), 351(2), and 352 BNS.

Thereafter, the informant filed a protest application against the final report concerning Alpana Singh. By order dated 22 May 2026, the Magistrate allowed the protest application, took cognizance against Alpana Singh and again against Shekhar Singh under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(2), and 109(1) BNS, and summoned them.

Alpana Singh challenged the order dated 22 May 2026 under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the Magistrate had impermissibly reviewed the earlier cognizance order and added offences against an accused who had already been summoned.

Whether a Magistrate has the power to review or take re-cognizance of offences in the same case crime number after an earlier cognizance order has been passed?

Whether a Magistrate may add or subtract penal sections while passing a subsequent order of cognizance and issuing summons?

Whether a protest petition filed after cognizance has already been taken against some accused persons can be used to reopen the earlier cognizance order and take fresh cognizance against additional accused persons or for additional offences?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS in exercising its jurisdiction to examine the legality of the summoning order, along with the relevant provisions of the BNS under which cognizance had been taken.

Relying on Ramakant Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2023) 15 SCC 429, the Court held that entertaining a protest petition against an earlier cognizance order and passing a fresh order amounts to an impermissible review.

Relying on State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, (2014) 3 SCC 659, it further held that in a police-report case the Magistrate cannot add or subtract offences at the stage of taking cognizance; the appropriate stage for determining the charges is the stage of framing charge under the applicable provisions of the BNSS/CrPC.

A protest petition may support proceedings concerning an accused against whom no earlier cognizance has been taken, but it cannot operate as a mechanism to review or reopen an earlier cognizance order.

The Magistrate had already taken cognizance on 17 November 2025 and summoned Shekhar Singh for specified offences. While deciding the subsequent protest application relating to Alpana Singh, the Magistrate again took cognizance against Shekhar Singh and additionally invoked Sections 324(2) and 109(1) BNS against him.

This effectively reconsidered and modified the earlier cognizance order, which was beyond the Magistrate’s jurisdiction because cognizance cannot be repeatedly taken in the same case or reviewed by the court that passed it.

Further, the Magistrate could not add or subtract offences at the cognizance stage; the question whether additional offences were made out had to be considered at the stage of framing charge, after hearing the prosecution and the accused.

Accordingly, the order dated 22 May 2026 was legally unsustainable to the extent that it reopened the earlier cognizance order and added offences against Shekhar Singh, while also summoning Alpana Singh through the same impermissible process.

Consequently, the order dated 22 May 2026 was set aside, the application under Section 528 BNSS was allowed, and the trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.