Patna High Court
Shishir Kr. Choudhary @ Bachu Choudhary ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 28 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2000)DMC272
Author: D.N. Prasad
Bench: D.N. Prasad
JUDGMENT D.N. Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 367/98 and also for quashing the cognizance order dated 25.9.1998.
2. The short facts giving rise to this application is that one complaint petition was filed by the opposite party No. 3 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, on 22.7.1998, alleging therein that on 5.2.1995 the marriage of Ranjana Choudhary (opposite party No. 2) was solemnised with Shishir Kr. Choudhary @ Bachu Choudhary in Sati Mandir, Ratu Road, Ranchi, and thereafter the petitioner No. 1 started demanding money. It is further alleged that the accused persons also started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the dowry, they started assaulting and torturing Ranjana Choudhary. It is further alleged that on 7.7.1997, all the petitioners poured kerosene oil on the body of opposite party No. 2 (Ranjana Choudhary) and pushed her on the burning stove who saved herself but sustained burn injuries in her both the legs. She was treated in Saharsa Hospital but later on she was brought at Ranchi and admitted to RMCH, Ranchi for treatment. It is further claimed that on 14.4.1998 the Fardbayan of opposite party No. 2 was recorded by Bariatu police but no legal action was taken and, as such, die complaint petition was filed. The learned Magistrate made an enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. and thereafter took cognizance by order dated 25.9.1998 against the petitioners.
3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the opposite parties.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate committed error in taking cognizance in this complaint case, though Saharsa police already registered a criminal case being Saharsa P.S. Case No. 137/98 corresponding to CR. No. 437/98 under Sections 498-A, 323,324,1.P.C. as well as Section 3/4 D.P. Act as back as on 12.5.1998 and the police started investigation into the case and so the proceeding of this complaint case should have been stayed till the completion of the investigation of the police case and the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the legal position, as envisaged under Section 210, Cr.P.C It is further argued that the learned Magistrate did not obtain any report from the Saharsa police in the respect of the police case pending there, though the learned Magistrate was aware of the whole situation and for which a petition was also filed in the Court below. But even then, the learned Magistrate did not care to call for the report and acted in this case in haste in taking cognizance by the impugned order which is fit to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly took cognizance of this case as he was not aware of the position that the investigation is going on in the police case, ' It is also submitted that Smt. Ranjana Choudhary was being subjected to torture and also sustained burn injuries for which she was treated at RMCH, Ranchi, and there is sufficient material to proceed with the case in the instant case, but even then the Saharsa police is sitting tight over the matter and not investigating the case properly.
6. Apparently, this complaint case was filed on 22.7.1998, whereas the fardbayan of Ranjana Choudhary was recorded by Baristu police as back as on 14.4.1998. Saharsa P.S. Case No. 137/98 was registered on 12.5.1998 and so this complaint case has admittedly been filed after the said police case being registered at Saharsa and the same was also registered on the basis of the fardbayan of Ranjana Choudhary (the victim).
Section 210, Cr.P.C. says that:
(1) In a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
7. From the lower Court records it appears that a petition was filed on 22.9.1998 in the lower Court on behalf of Laxmi Lai Jaiswal in which it was mentioned that Saharsa police received the said Fardbayan and instituted a case on 12.5.1998 Saharsa P.S. Case No. 137/98 under Sections 323,324 and 498A, I.P.C. as well as Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Mr. S.K. Yadav, S.I. of the said police station is investigating the case. It is also mentioned in the said petition that the place of occurrence is the quarters of Saharsa Hospital as the occurrence took place there. Even then the learned Magistrate did not care to call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation rather the said petition was ordered to be kept on the record and without getting any information about the police case pending at Saharsa, the learned Magistrate took cognizance in this complaint case by order dated 25.9.1998 which is illegal due to non-compliance of the provisions, as laid down under Section 210, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate should have stayed the proceeding of such inquiry in the instant case as soon as such petition was filed that the police case has already been registered at Saharsa and investigation is also going on but instead of staying the proceeding of the complaint case, he took cognizance which is fit to be quashed. It is also manifest that the object of underlying Section 210, Cr.P.C. is that when the of fence in the complaint case and the police case are identical, they should be tried together to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of the proceeding. There is no doubt that the present case is fully covered by Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the proceeding of the complaint case should have been stayed in view of the fact that the investigation of the criminal case which was registered on the basis of the fardbayan of the victim/Ranjana Choudhary, is going on.
8. Having regard to the whole fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate committed error in taking cognizance in this complaint case by order dated 25.9.1998 which is accordingly, quashed. It is true that the investigation in the police case has not yet been concluded, though the said police case is pending since 1998. However, the learned Magistre is directed to call for a report from the Investigating Officer about the stage of the proceeding, as required under the law and proceed with the instant case in accordance with law.