Kerala High Court
Peter Mathew vs Betty John on 10 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALT(CRI)404, 2001CRILJ4555
ORDER N. Krishnan Nair, J.
1. This is a petition filed under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure C order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate III, Thrissur in Crl.M.P. No. 2146/2001 in C.C. No. 770/99.
2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 770/99 on the file of the J.F.C.M. III, Thrissur. The case arose on a complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner alleging the commission of the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Police has also registered crime No. 144/99 of the Peechi police station against the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 409 and 420 of the IPC. The petitioner preferred a petition before the lower court under S. 210 of the Cr.P.C. for staying the proceedings in C.C. 770/1999. The lower court dismissed h petition by a common order in Crl.M.C. No. 2148/2001 in C.C. 686/99 and Crl. M.P. No. 2146/2001 in C.C. No. 2146/2001 in C.C. No. 770/99. Aggrieved by the order in Crl. M.P. No. 2146/2001 the petitioner has come up with this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the finding of the court below S. 210 of the Cr.P.C. is not attracted in this case is clearly unsustainable. Relying on the decision of this court reported in Joseph v. Joseph (1981 KLT 902), the learned counsel contended that in construing S. 210(1) the word 'offence' cannot be given the restricted meaning. According to him, the subject matter of the enquiry in both the cases is the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent supported the order and urged that there is no ground for interference. He placed much reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1).
4. The question for consideration is whether the proceedings in C.C. 686/1999 are liable to be stayed under S. 210 of the Cr.P.C. S. 210 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure to be followed by the Court when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the sam offence. As per this Section, when a complaint case is pending before a Magistrate and an investigation is pending before the police in relation to the very same offence which is the subject matter of the complaint case before him, the inquiry or trial whichever may be pending before the Magistrate shall be stayed and a report called for from the police. In this case, the complaint case pending before the Magistrate is the one filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner accordingly, S. 210 of the Cr.P.C. has no role to play. In this case, S. 210(1) of the Cr.P.C. would not be attracted since cognizance of the offence under S. 138 can only be taken on a complaint filed by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque. The ingredients of an offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not part of the offences under Ss. 409 and 420 of the IPC.
For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that S. 210 of the Cr.P.C. is not attracted in this case. The Magistrate was fully justified in dismissing the petition.
5. In the result, the petition is dismissed.