cannot be accepted for the simple reason that at the stage of consideration of the report of investigation filed by the police, the person against whom the complaint is filed has not yet assumed the character of “accused”. He becomes an accused only after cognizance is taken by the Court and summons is served upon him. Until then, he has no right of hearing in the proceedings against him. At the stage of acceptance of the report, the only person who has a right of hearing, is the complainant. As such, the notice directed to be issued by the order of this Court on the writ petition could be issued only to respondent no.2 and not to the petitioner. The issuance of notice by the trial Court to the petitioner was clearly misreading of the order of this Court passed in writ petition. Therefore, the notice to the petitioner is required to be completely ignored even though the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and was heard on the protest petition. In the circumstances, the stage of the proceedings before the trial Court was the first stage of “the time of taking cognizance”. Therefore, the impugned order was within the powers conferred upon the trial Court. Secondly, the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court pursuant to the notice served upon him would not amount to taking of cognizance by the Court. This is because the cognizance to be taken by the Court is of the offence and not an individual. At the relevant time, the Court was yet to decide on a prima-facie view of the matter, whether offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order directing further investigation by the police. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
