Gauhati High Court
Smt. Sashi Sarawgi vs Sarwan Kumar Jha on 31 July, 2017
Author: Manash Ranjan Pathak
Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak
Crl. Pet. No. 150 of 2015
with
Crl. Pet. No. 167 of 2015
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
31.07.2017
Heard Mr. Gajanand Sahewalla learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pinak
Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. Pet. No. 150 of 2015.
2) Heard Mr. Shyam Sundar Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
Laxmi Sharma for the petitioner in Crl. Pet. No. 167 of 2015.
3) Also heard Mr. Pradip Khataniar, learned counsel for the complainant/
opposite party in both the criminal petitions and Mr. Gajanand Sahewalla learned
senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the for the opposite
party No. 1/accused (petitioner of Crl. Pet. No. 150/2015) in Crl. Pet. No. 167 of
2015.
4) Both the criminal petitions relate to quashing of the proceeding of C.R. Case
No. 307c/2014 as well as the order dated 13.06.2014 passed in the said C.R. Case,
now pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati
by which the said Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections
380/448 IPC against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint lodged by the
opposite party Sri Sarwan Kumar Jha as a complainant.
5) The brief fact of the case is that there is an unresolved long dispute
regarding tenancy as well as some monetary transaction between, Sri Pradip Kr.
Sarawgi, who is the husband of the petitioner of Crl. Pet. No. 150 of 2015 as well
as the brother-in-law of the petitioner of Crl. Pet. No. 167 of 2015 and one Mr.
Rahmat Dhanani of M/S. Dhanani Shoes Private Limited; before said Sri Sarawgi
moved to Australia. Prior to his departure for Australia, said Sri Sarawgi and Sri
Dhanani were in friendly terms, but due to such dispute there are claims and
counter claims between them.
Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 1 of 11
6) Said Sri Sarawgi owns and possesses a building, situated at T.R. Phukan
Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati and during the days of their friendship, Sri Sarawgi
gave a portion of his said building to Mr. Dhanani. When wife of said Sri Sarawgi,
Smti. Sashi Sarawgi, the petitioner of Crl. Pet. No. 150/2015 in February 2007
visited her paternal home at Guwahati; on 08.02.2007 she along with her sister-in-
law, wife of the petitioner of Crl. Pet. No. 167/2015 Sri Anil Kr. Jain visited the said
building of Sri Sarawgi and during her said visit to the building in question, the staff
of Sri Dhanani kept them as captive and demanded repayment of money allegedly
due from Sri Sarawgi, to which she pleaded ignorance about the same. But the
employees of said Sri Dhanani kept those ladies confined in the office room of M/S.
Dhanani Shoes Pvt. Ltd. by putting a lock.
7) Facing such a situation and being helpless, those ladies made call to Sri
Anil Kr. Jain and his mother to secure their release from illegal confinement of the
employees of Sri Dhanani and on getting such a distress call, said Anil Kr. Jain went
to the All Women Police Station at Panbazar, Guwahati and informed them on the
basis of which G.D. Entry No 118/119 dated 8.2.2007 was registered and the police
officer concerned alongwith two women police went to the place of the incident
and rescued both the ladies.
8) The opposite party Sri Sarwan Kumar Jha on 09.02.2017 lodged a criminal
complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati against the
petitioners of both the Criminal Petitions in hand and others alleging that they are
involved in commission of offences under Sections 447/427/323/380/34 IPC.
9) After perusal of the said criminal complaint, the CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati by
his order dated 09.02.2007 directed the Officer-in-Charge of Panbazar Police
Station to register the same as police case, to investigate it and to submit report in
the said matter. Police on receipt of said complaint of said Sarwan Kumar Jha,
registered it as Panbazar Police Station Case No. 47/2007 (corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 538/2007), under Sections 447/323/427/380/34 IPC. After investigation
of said case, the Officer-in-Charge of Panbazar Police Station on 28.10.2009 vide
No. 202/2009 submitted the Final Report (closure report) in said Panbazar P.S.
Case No. 47/2007 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 538/2007), stating that after
recording the statements of the witnesses acquainted to the case, the Investigating
Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 2 of 11
Officer found that there is a long standing business differences between the owners
of both the parties where it is alleged that Sri Pradip Kr. Sarawgi, husband of Smti.
Sashi Sarawgi had to repay loans to many and on hearing that he had visited his
said building, some people came there and in the absence of both the owners (Mr.
Dhanani and Mr. Sarawgi) the employees of Mr. Dhanani and the family of Mr.
Sarawgi had some arguments and made hue and cry in the place of occurrence. It
is stated that excepting the same there is no witness to the incident of snatching
away any money by any person as alleged in the complaint and that during such
enquiry materials under Section 447/427 IPC though found, but as the matter
relates to civil dispute between the parties, the Investigating Officer of the case
submits the Final Report (closer report) in the case.
10) After considering the said police report dated 28.10.2009, the Chief Judicial
magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati by his order dated 10.12.2013 passed in said G.R.
Case No. 538/2007 arising out of said Panbazar PS Case issued notice to the
complainant asking him to submit objection if any, in accepting the said Final
Report fixing the said case on 06.01.2014. On 06.01.2014 the complainant vide
petition No. 57 filed his protest petition raising objection against the Final Report
filed in said Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007. On the basis of said protest petition
and hearing the parties, the CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati on 06.01.2014 itself passed an
order in said G.R. Case No. 538/2007 treating the said objection petition of the
complainant as a complaint, directing the same to be registered and forwarded the
said complaint to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup, Guwahati along with
the case record for disposal. Accordingly, C.R. Case No. 307C/2014 was registered,
where after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
on 10.02.2014 and his two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2014, the
learned Trial Magistrate, i.e. the JMFC, Kamrup Guwahati by order dated
13.06.2014 passed in said C.R. Case No. 307C/2014 took cognizance of the
offences under Sections 380/448 IPC against the accused persons, the petitioners
herein.
11) Both the criminal petitions have been filed against the same impugned order
dated 13.06.2014 of taking cognizance of the same offences under Sections
380/448 IPC in the same complaint case i.e. CR Case No. 307C/2014 against the
Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 3 of 11
petitioners by the JMFC, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati and as agreed by the parties to
these petitions, said criminal petitions are taken up together for disposal.
12) Both Mr. Sahewalla and Mr. Sharma learned senior counsels on behalf of
their petitioners submitted that the trial Magistrate committed illegality in taking
cognizance of the offences against the petitioners as the complaint filed by the
complainant did not disclose any offence. Both the senior counsels also submitted
that the learned Magistrate while preceded with the matter treating the protest
petition of the complainant dated 06.01.2014 as compaliant, but it did not disclose
any offence against the petitioners. In this regard petitioners relied on a decision
of this Court in the case of Moinul Haque (Md.) & Others -Vs- State of Assam &
Another, reported in 2013 (4) GLT 1038.
13) Mr. Khataniar appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that after
recording the statement of the complainant on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Trial Magistrate, finding sufficient
materials and being prima facie satisfied, took cognizance of the offences under
Sections 380/448 IPC against the petitioners. He further submitted that the
complaint petition of the complainant was already filed in the case and by his
protest petition the complainant reiterated the complaints against the petitioners.
It is further submitted that as the cognizance of the offences have already been
taken against the petitioners after recording the statement of the complainant and
his witnesses, now under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court should not set aside quash
the proceeding of said CR Case No. 307C/2014. Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel in
support of the contentions made on behalf of the complainant relied on the
decisions reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736 [Nagawwa -Vs- V.S. Konjalgi,], (1980) 4
SCC 631 [H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-cum-Dy. Secy. Finance -Vs- State
(Union Territory of Chandigarh)], (2007) 3 SCC 548 [Rashida Kamaluddin Syed -Vs-
Shaikh Saheblal Mardan,], (2014) 10 SCC 663 [Binod Kumar -Vs- State of Bihar,]
and a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Pranesh -Vs- The
State of Karnataka, represented by PSI and Another, reported in 2015 2 KCCR 1729
: 2015 0 Supreme (Kar) 319.
14) Considered the arguments placed by the parties as well as the judgments
cited by them.
Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 4 of 11
15) Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., consisting of Sections 154 to 176 relates to
"Information to the Police and their Powers to Investigate", Chapter XIV of the
Code, consisting of Sections 190 to 199 relates to "Conditions requisite for Initiation
of Proceedings", Chapter XV of the Code, consisting of Sections 200 to 203 relates
to "Complaints to Magistrates" and Chapter XVI of said Code, consisting of Sections
204 to 210 relates to "Commencement of Proceedings before Magistrates".
Considering all those provisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.S.
Bains, Director, Small Saving-cum-Dy. Secy. Finance -Vs- State (Union Territory of
Chandigarh), reported in (1980) 4 SCC 631 have held that -
"............on receipt of a complaint a Magistrate has several courses open to him.
He may take cognizance of the offence and proceed to record the statements of
the complainant and the witnesses present under Section 200. Thereafter, if in
his opinion there is no sufficient ground for proceeding he may dismiss the
complaint under Section 203. If in his opinion there is sufficient ground for
proceeding he may issue process under Section 204.
However, if he thinks fit, he may postpone the issue of process and either
enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police
officer or such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether
or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. He may then issue process if in
his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding or dismiss the complaint if
there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.
On the other hand, in the first instance, on receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate
may, instead of taking cognizance of the offence, order an investigation under
Section 156(3). The police will then investigate and submit a report under
Section 173(1). On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take
cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) and straight away issue
process.
This he may do irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report
whether an offence has been made out or not. The police report under Section
173 will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police and the
conclusions drawn by the police therefrom. The Magistrate is not bound by the
conclusions drawn by the police and he may decide to issue process even if the
police recommend that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further.
The Magistrate after receiving the police report, may, without issuing process or
dropping the proceeding decide to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of
the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the statements
upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present under Section 200 of the
Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decide whether to dismiss the complaint
or issue process.
The mere fact that he had earlier ordered an investigation under Section 156 (3)
and received a report under Section 173 will not have the effect of total
effacement of the complaint and therefore the Magistrate will not be barred from
proceeding under Sections 200, 203 and 204.
Thus, a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under
Section 156(3) and receives a police report under Section 173(1), may,
thereafter, do one of three things: (1) he may decide that there is no sufficient
Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 5 of 11
ground for proceeding further and drop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the
offence under Section 190 (1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue
process; this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion
arrived at by the police in their report; (3) he may take cognizance of the offence
under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to
examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200.
If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section
202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as
the case may be."
16) A three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bhagwant
Singh -Vs- Commr. of Police, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537 have held that -
"There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report
made by the officer-in-charge of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of
Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and
issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that
he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of
the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case
where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of
Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the
proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, the
Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to
be heard at the time of consideration of the report."
17) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre -Vs-
State of Maharashtra, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 768, have held that -
"There is no provision in the Code to file a protest petition by the informant who
lodged the first information report. But this has been the practice. Absence of a
provision in the Code relating to filing of a protest petition has been considered in
the case of Bhagwant Singh -Vs- Commr. of Police, [(1985) 2 SCC 537].
Therefore, there is no shadow of doubt that the informant is entitled to a notice
and an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.
That upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled
to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the
police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The
Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by
the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained
of and order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay
down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the investigating
officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the
accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating
officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the
investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers
under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The
Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in
Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section
190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also.
The informant is not prejudicially affected when the Magistrate decides to take
cognizance and to proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate decides that
Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 6 of 11
sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding further and drops the
proceeding or takes the view that there is material for proceeding against some
and there are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would
certainly be prejudiced as the first information report lodged becomes wholly or
partially ineffective. Therefore, this Court indicated in Bhagwant Singh case that
where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to drop the proceeding
or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of
the persons mentioned in the first information report, notice to the informant and
grant of opportunity of being heard in the matter becomes mandatory. As
indicated above, there is no provision in the Code for issue of a notice in that
regard."
18) In the case of Popular Muthiah -Vs- State, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 296
the Hon'ble Supreme court have held that -
"........ the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate in the matter of issuance of
process or taking of cognizance depends upon existence of conditions precedent
therefor. The Magistrate has jurisdiction in the event a final form is filed (i) to
accept the final form; (ii) in the event a protest petition is filed to treat the same
as a complaint petition and if a prima facie case is made out, to issue processes;
(iii) to take cognizance of the offences against a person, although a final form
has been filed by the police, in the event he comes to the opinion that sufficient
materials exist in the case diary itself therefor; and (iv) to direct
reinvestigation into the matter."
19) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Chandrika -Vs- Santhosh,
reported in (2014) 13 SCC 699 have held that -
"5. The power of the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence on a complaint
or a protest petition on the same or similar allegations even after accepting the
final report cannot be disputed. It is settled law that when a complaint is filed
and sent to police under Section 156(3) for investigation and then a protest
petition is filed, the Magistrate after accepting the final report of the police under
Section 173 and discharging the accused persons has the power to deal with the
protest petition. However, the protest petition has to satisfy the ingredients of
complaint before the Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC.
10. The Magistrate has to exercise judicial discretion and apply his mind to the
contents of the petition."
20) Another Bench of this Court in the case of Moinul Haque (Md.) & Others -Vs-
State of Assam & Another, reported in 2013 (4) GLT 1038 have observed that -
"The least I can say is that the learned SDJM apparently did not even bother to
peruse the contents of the protest petition and try to refer to the provisions of
Sections 2(d), 190(1)(a) or 200 CrPC. He completely overlooked the legal
position that he could not take cognizance of any offence unless the facts
contained in the protest petition satisfy the requirement of Section 2 (d) read
with Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. He should not have acted like the rubber stamp of
the respondent No. 2. As already noticed, the sine qua non for taking cognizance
of an offence is that the complainant in his complaint or protest petition must make an allegation of facts which constitute an offence as defined in Section 2(d) CrPC. Before taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a), a Magistrate cannot Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 7 of 11 proceed with examination of witnesses under Section 200 CrPC. This legal position has escaped the attention of both the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Rangia. Cognizance of the offences punishable U/s 143/436/427 IPC has been taken by the learned SDJM on the protest petition bereft of any allegation of facts constituting such offences. In the view that I have taken, the impugned order suffers from the vice of non- application, which resulted in improper exercise of jurisdiction by the learned SDJM,: this call for the interference of this Court."
21) Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. defines "complaint" and it reads as -
"2(d) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case, which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed a complaints and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;"
22) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yousuf -Vs- Afaq Jahan, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 627 have held that -
"The nomenclature of a petition is inconsequential. There is no particular format of a complaint. A petition addressed to the Magistrate containing an allegation that an offence has been committed, and ending with a prayer that the culprits be suitably dealt with, as in the instant case, is a complaint."
23) In the case of Rajesh Bajaj -Vs- State NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that -
"It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent."
24) In the present case it is seen that the CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati by his order dated 09.02.2007 itself forwarded the complaint dated 09.02.2017 of the complainant/opposite party to the Officer-in-Charge of Panbazar Police Station directing him to register it as a case, to investigate the matter and to submit the report on the basis of which it was registered as Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 538/2007), under Sections 447/323/427/380/34 and after investigation of the said case Police on 28.10.2009 submitted the Final Report (closure report) in said Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 538/2007) referring the case as not proved.
Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 8 of 1125) From the certified copy of the orders of the case submitted by the petitioners it is seen that after perusal of the Final Report filed in said Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007, the CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati by his order dated 10.12.2013 passed in said G.R. Case No. 538/2007 arising out of said Panbazar PS Case issued notice to the complainant asking him to submit objection if any, in accepting the said Final Report fixing the said case on 06.01.2014. Thereafter, on 06.01.2014 the complainant vide petition No. 57 filed his protest petition raising objection against the Final Report filed in said Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007. On the basis of said protest petition and hearing the parties, the CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati by his order dated 06.01.2014 directed to register the said objection petition of the complainant as a complaint and forwarded the same to the JMFC, Kamrup, Guwahati along with the said case record for disposal and accordingly, C.R. Case No. 307C/2014 was registered, where after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses of the complainant under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Trial Magistrate by order dated 13.06.2014 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 380/448 IPC against the petitioners/accused persons of said C.R. Case No. 307C/2014.
26) From the perusal of the protest petition (also called as 'naraji petition') of the complainant filed on 06.01.2014 vide petition No. 57 before the CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati in said Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007, certified copy of which has been annexed to the petitions, it is seen that except making a statement that - "there is sufficient evidence to prove the offence alleged to have committed by the accused in the instant case" said protest petition neither contained any allegation that any offence have been committed by the petitioners nor ends with any prayer that offenders/accused persons should be punished accordingly.
27) As such upon receipt of the police report under Section 173(2) to the effect that no case is made out against the accused, the Magistrate though entitled to take cognizance of offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of materials enclosed with the police report, case diary or on the basis of original complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.; but without ignoring the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer of the case and considering such report in final form/closer report, when the Magistrate issues notice to the Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 9 of 11 complainant to submit his/her objection to such final report of police; in that circumstances, in the event of filing any protest/naraji/objection petition by the complainant, the Magistrate has to proceed with such protest petition only and shall treat such protest petition as a complaint, only when it fulfills the elements of "complaint" as defined in Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C.; otherwise such protest/naraji/objection petition cannot be treated as a "complaint" and the Magistrate on the basis of such protest petition treating as complaint cannot proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C respectively and to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) against the alleged accused persons.
28) For the reasons above, the protest/objection petition of the complainant/ opposite party filed on 06.01.2014 in said Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007 vide petition No. 57 being not in conformity with the "complaint" as defined in Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. is bad in law and therefore, the Court is of the view that the order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in G.R. Case No. 538/2007 arising out of Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007 directing to register the said objection petition of the complainant dated 06.01.2014 as a complaint being C.R. Case No. 307C/2014 if allowed to continue and any criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of such illegal complaint allowed to proceed, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
29) As such, for the ends of justice said order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in G.R. Case No. 538/2007 arising out of Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007 treating the objection petition of the complainant/opposite party dated 06.01.2014 filed in Panbazar P.S. Case No. 47/2007 as a complaint being C.R. Case No. 307C/2014 is hereby set aside quashed. Consequently, the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati dated 13.06.2014 in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 380/448 IPC against the petitioners as accused persons in said C.R. Case No. 307C/2014 is also set aside and quashed.
30) Interim orders dated 27.02.2015 passed in Crl. Ptn. No. 150/2015 as well as the order dated 04.03.2015 passed in Crl. Ptn. No. 167/2015 suspending the Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 10 of 11 further proceeding of said C.R. Case No. 307C/2014 against the respective petitioners shall merged with this order.
31) Accordingly, both the criminal petitions area allowed.
JUDGE Pb/-
Crl. Ptn. Nos. 150/2015 and 167/2015 Page 11 of 11