An order taking cognizance is a revisable judicial determination, precluding inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the JMFC, Budhar, which allowed a prosecution application under Sections 190 and 173(8) Cr.P.C.

The Magistrate took cognizance of offences against the petitioner (who was not originally charge-sheeted) and directed the investigating agency to file a supplementary charge-sheet

The petitioner argued the order was an interlocutory one, rendering a revision under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. barred and justifying the 482 petition

The petitioner further cited a 2016 High Court order where a co-accused successfully quashed the same order

1. Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the impugned order involves both the taking of cognizance and a direction for further investigation.

2. Whether an order taking cognizance against an additional accused under Section 190 Cr.P.C. constitutes an interlocutory order or a revisable substantive order.

The Court primarily applied Section 190 and Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. regarding cognizance and supplementary investigation

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in SWIL Ltd. Vs. State of Delhi and Another (2001) 6 SCC 670, which established that a Magistrate can take cognizance against persons not named in the charge-sheet if materials disclose their involvement

The court also applied Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., distinguishing between revisable substantive orders and "interlocutory orders" which are barred from revision under Section 397(2)

It further held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when no efficacious statutory remedy (like revision) is available

The Court analyzed the "dominant purpose" of the impugned order, finding it comprised two parts: taking cognizance and directing a supplementary charge-sheet

The Court reasoned that while the direction for a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) is procedural/interlocutory, the decision to take cognizance under Section 190 is a judicial determination affecting substantive rights and is thus a revisable order

The Court rejected the petitioner's attempt to bypass the Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction by focusing only on the interlocutory portion of the order

Regarding the co-accused’s previous successful 482 petition, the Court noted that the issue of maintainability was never raised or decided in that case, and therefore it did not serve as a binding precedent

The Court dismissed the petition while reserving liberty for the petitioner to approach the Revisional Court. It clarified that if the order of cognizance is set aside by the Revisional Court, the consequential direction for a supplementary charge-sheet will automatically fail