Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar And Another vs Rajender And Another on 22 August, 2013
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
Crl. Misc. No. M 4258 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Crl. Misc. No. M 4258 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.08.2013
Suresh Kumar and another ........ Petitioners
Versus
Rajender and another .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-
Present: Mr. Manoj Kapriwas, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana
Mr. S N Yadav, Advocate
for respondent No. 1
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Rekha Mittal, J.
The petitioners pray for setting aside summoning order dated 08.07.2011 (Annexure P1), passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohindergarh and order dated 02.12.2011 (Annexure P2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narnaul.
The petitioners averred that the respondent attacked the petitioners on 27.01.2011 and caused injuries to them. FIR No. 23 dated 28.01.2011 under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC was registered against the respondent in Police Station Kanina. The respondent, as a counter blast, made a false complaint to the Police of Police Station Kanina on the basis Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.08.30 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 4258 of 2012 (O&M) 2 of self suffered injuries. During pendency of investigation by the police, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Mohindergarh. Order dated 08.07.2011 has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate in violation of provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. The revision preferred by the petitioners against order dated 08.07.2011 was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narnaul on 02.12.2011.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent gave information to the police as a cross version to FIR No. 23 dated 28.01.2011 got registered by the petitioners, which was recorded in DDR at serial No. 15 dated 27.01.2011. It is further submitted that during pendency of investigation of DDR, the respondent filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate and the Court concerned, in utter disregard and complete violation of mandatory provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., proceeded to examine the complainant and his witnesses and passed summoning order on 08.07.2011. The revision petition preferred by the petitioners against summoning order was illegally and wrongly dismissed by the revisional Court. It is further submitted that the summoning order and order passed in revision are liable to be set aside.
Counsel for the contesting respondent argues that as the police did not initiate any action on the report lodged by the respondent, who sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioners who got recorded a false FIR, the respondent took resort to alternative remedy under law and filed a criminal complaint and the Court rightly took cognizance of the offence. It is further argued that as a prima facie case was proved against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate passed summoning order dated 08.07.2011, which Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.08.30 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 4258 of 2012 (O&M) 3 was affirmed by the revisional Court.
Counsel for respondent No. 2 in view of reply filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mohindergarh dated 21.08.2013 submitted that DDR No. 15 dated 27.01.2011 was recorded in Police Station Kanina, but since no cognizable offence was found to be made out against any person, no action was taken on the report lodged by respondent No. 1.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.
Before proceeding to adjudicate upon the controversy on merits, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C.. A relevant extract of Section 210 Cr.P.C.,is reproduced for facility of reference "210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence (1) When 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."
A perusal of Section 210(1) Cr.P.C., would reveal that when a case is instituted otherwise than on a police report and it appears 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 subject matter of the inquiry or trial, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings and Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.08.30 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 4258 of 2012 (O&M) 4 call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. The legislative intent behind this provision appears to be that a person should not face two proceedings in regard to the same occurrence.
A perusal of reply filed by DSP, Mohindergarh dated 21.08.2013, leaves no manner of doubt that no investigation was ever held much less in progress on the report lodged by the respondent which was merely recorded in DDR. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the trial Court proceeded with the criminal complaint filed by the respondent during investigation by the police in relation to the offence, subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by the Court of Magistrate.
This apart, no FIR was lodged by the police on the report made by the respondent and without lodging of FIR, the police otherwise was not competent to conduct any investigation of a cognizable offence.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any error much less illegality in the orders impugned as would call for interference.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 22.08.2013 mohan Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.08.30 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh