Meghalaya High Court
Ms. Betshuwa Nelly Dympep vs Smti Hasinakharbhih And Ors on 4 April, 2013
Crl. Revn. P ism No. 50 of 2012
1. Miss Betshwa Nelly Dympep,
D/o Shri K. Manik
R/o Umsohrun, Near Miracle Beauty Parlour
East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong, Meghalaya
Pin 793001. ..... .. Petitioner
- VIS-
l. 'Smti. Hasina Kharhhih
R/ o Riatsamthiah, Block No. 4
East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong, Meghalaya.
2. Shri. Romeo Myrchiang
R / 0 Near Horse Shoe Building,
Lower Lachumiere, Shillong
East Khas-i Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. Smti. Rosana Lyngdoh
R /o Lumkshaid,
Lower Maw/prom, Shillong
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya. Rcspondents
Crl. Revn. P {SJ-l) No. 61 of 2012
l. Smti. Daphun Manik
W/o Shri W. Swer
R/o Mawlai Nongkwar,
East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong, Mcghalaya
Pin 793001. ..... .. Petitioner
- vrs-
1. Smti. Hasina Kharbhih
R/ o Riatsamthiah, Blo'ck No. 4
East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong, Meghalaya.
2. Shri. Romeo Myrchiang
R /0 Near Horse Shoe Building,
Lower Lachumiere, Shillong
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya. .
3-. Smti. Rosana Lyrigdoh
R/o Lumkshaid,
Lower Mawprem, Shillong
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghal'aya. _ .. Respondents
Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)58/12
Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)59/12
Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH}60/12
Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)61/12
Cr] Revn Petitioner No.(SH)_62/12 Page 2 of '/
Crl. Revn. P 18H! No. 62 (£2012
1. Shri. K. Manik
S/o (L) U. Bailung
R/o Umsohrun, Near Miracle Beauty Parlour
East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong, Meghalaya
Pin 793001. ..... .. Petitioner
- VIS-
1._ Smti. Hasina Kharbhih
R / o Riatsamthiah, Block No. 4
East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong, Meghalaya.
2. Shri. Romeo Myrchiang
R / 0 Near Horse Shoe Building,
Lower Lachumiere, Shillong
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. Smti. Rosana Lyngdoh
R/ o Lumkshaid,
Lower Mawprem, Shillong
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya. .... .. Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON"BLE MR JUSTICE SR SEN
Advocate for the Petitioners :Mr. TT Diengdoh
:Mr. K Baruah
:Mr. MF Diengdoh
:Ms' B Hynniewta
:Mr. JM Thangkhiew, Advs,
Advocate for the Respondents :Mr, BK Deb Roy
:Mr. SD Upadhaya, Advs.
Date-0f Hearing 14,04V13
Date of Judgment and Order :4.04.13
Crl Revn Petitioner No.($H}58/12
Cr! Revn Petitioner No.(SH)59/12
Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)60_/12
I Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)51/12
1-,: n'_ _ n.;.:u-,--mfilruic1/11 Page '2, of?
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard learned counsel Mr. TT Diengdoh assisted by Mr. K Baruah, the learned coolnsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel Mr. T'l' Diengdoh submits that 5 (five) Criminal Petitions (SH) Nos. 58 of 2012,. 59 of 20112, 60 of 2012, 61 of 2012 and 62 of 2012 arise out of common complaint dated 22.04.2009 which was registered as CR No. 316 (S) 2009. Since 5 (five) Revision Petitions arose out of the common complaint, matter has been taken up for disposal by this common judgment.
3. The learned counsel Mr. T.T Diengdoh contended that the complainant had filed the said complaint with an intention to harass the petitioner. He also submits that before filing the complaint, an FIR was lodged in Laitumkhrah PS Case No. 65 (9) 2008 on the same subject matter. Since the court could not arrive on the conclusion till date, the police filed an FR in the said PS case. The petitioner moved this instant Revision Petition for quashing the preceeding pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as CR No. 316 (S) 2009. The learned counsel also referred to Section 2l0 of the CrPC and submits that, proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, a mandatory provision of Section--210 has been grossly violated and the case cannot be proceeded. Further more, in spite of direction given by the District as Sessions Judge, the case has not been dispOSed of within a specific time. He also further submits that the FR filed has already been accepted. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of' Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 and prayed that the proceeding under CR No. 316 (S) 2009 may be quashed Crl' Revn Petitioner No.(~SH)58/'12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)59/12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.($H)60/12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)61/12 {'rl Daun Dntifinnnr Nh (CHXR') M? 0:03 A at '1'
4. On the other hand, Mr. BK Deb Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the FR was against only 1 (one) accused person i.e Smti. Betshwa Nelly Dympep, and not against all the accused/ petitioners. He also further argues that FR dated 28.09.10 Was accepted without giving any show cause to the complainant/ respondent. He also argues that complaint is not out of any personal grudge or out of any civil dispute. In support of his submission, he relied on (1993) 1 SCC 561, (2006) 6 SCC 736, AIR (2008) SCC 207 and (2009) 1 SCC 20.
5. After hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsel and on perusal of Page --24, FR No. 58 dated 28.09.10 it is apparent that in this case FR has submitted against only 1 (one) accused person i.e Smti. Betshwa Nelly Dyrnpep, which is undisputed fact by the parties. I cannot agree with the submission made by the respondent counsel that notice has not been served upon the complainant/respondent, as Annexure-- V of the petition speaks that notice was issued and Annexure VI shows that notice returned after service. Since no show cause has been filed, FR was accepted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, there is no question of dispute that notice has not been served before acceptance of the FR. However, whatever the case may be and to decide the entire issue, I need. to consider Section-210 CrPC which is reproduced herein under.
"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 process in relation to the offence which is the subject- matte-r 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 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)58/12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)S9/12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)60/12 CrlRevn Petitioner N0.(SH)61/12 rs! 0mm Datifinnor Mn lCHlfU/l?Page 5 of 7
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 provision of this Code."
6. On perusal of the sub Section--(1) of 210 CrPC , it is crystal clear that when a complaint filed. before Magistrate and FIR has also been lodged and the police is investigating into the matter. In such a circumstances, the Magistrate is duty bound to stay the complaint proceeding and to call for a report from the police who conducted the investigation. In this instant. case, from the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is admitted and wan--dispute fact that Sub-Section--(l) of 210 CrPC has been grossly violated. The parties on their submissions herein placed on records that FIR was lodged first and then complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In such a circumstances, it was the duty of the. complainant/ respondent to bring to the notice of the Court and to pray for the reports from the police as required under sub Section-(1) of 210 Cr'PC. In this ground alone, the entire complaint proceeding of ' the complaint case is illegal and may be'quashed. Besides that, the proceeding before the learned Trial Court is prolonged without, any result.
Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)58/12~ Crl Revn Petitioner No.(5H)59]12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)60/12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)61/12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)62/12 Page 6 of 7
7. Therefore, I am of the View that the Complaint in question has no further leg to stand on. It is a Settled principle that wide power has been given under Sectiono482 CrPC to apply to prevent abuse of the process of law. Since sub Section--(l) of 210 CrPC has been grossly violated and the matter was dragged without any result, it also does not reflect that the party has taken sincere steps to dispose of the matter by the Court at the earliest. I feel that it is a fit case where it needs- to be quashed. Accordingly the proceedings in CR No. 316 (S) 2009 against the petitioners are hereby quashed by this common judgment and order and stands disposed of.
8' No order as to cost
9. Registry is directed to send down back the LCR to the Court concern immediately with a copy of this judgment and order and the matter stands disposed of.
9 San i x;
DGE V. Lyndem ' meow W"
L % flf} 6% ' (t a? I superintendent (Judicial;
Meghaiaya High Court [A Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)58/12 Crl Revn Petitioner NoV(SH)59/12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)60/12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)61/12 Crl Revn Petitioner No.(SH)52/12 Page 7' of 7 ll