Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

When using a loose language, two cases are said to be clubbed, that means ........... that they are being tried together but that cannot make any one of those cases to loss its identity. Once in a matter summons has been issued by the Magistrate, unless the accused is discharged, the case continues to exist and therefore, judgment should indicate that.
The Court, while ordering that both the cases would be clubbed in respect of this occurrence has practically merged them which it had no jurisdiction to do. Since it is clear from the language of S. 210 Cr.P.C., that both the cases exist side by side and continue to have their specific identities and the Court has no jurisdiction to merge them, it is always better to avoid terms like, 'clubbing' and to use the language of the Code itself, that is to say, 'trying together'. Since the Court below has committed a gross error which has affected the interests of justice in both the cases, the revision petition has to be allowed, and the trial Court while dealing with the matter should follow the guidelines indicated by the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1985 SCC (Crl) 93 : (1986) Cri LJ 831 ............. In the present case, the Magistrate did not act at the beginning strictly in accordance with S. 210 Cr.P.C. by way of staying the proceedings and calling for a report. But after the case filed by the police has been transferred to his court the Magistrate has become aware that the cases were covered by S. 210, Cr.P.C. and he purported to act under that section. As per that section, the merging of the cases is not contemplated. What is contemplated is only that the cases be tried together.
As per S. 210, Cr.P.C. the two cases continued to exist separately. But both the cases should be tried as if both of them have been instituted on a police report, from the time the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence under the report. It is to be noted that this contingency may happen at any stage of the private complaint case because the Magistrate would have stayed that case only when it has been made to appear to him that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the same subject matter.' In Samraj v. Saravanchami, 1990 LW (Crl) 370, following the decision of David Annoussamy, J., Arunachalam, J. has observed that S. 210, Cr.P.C. would not permit literal merging of the cases, for the separate identity of the two different prosecutions, though in respect of the same occurrence could not be overlooked and they may have to be dealt with together side by side. The Supreme Court in Manikandan v. Pandian, 1990 SCC (Crl) 203 has observed as follows :- 'Before parting with the case, it may be necessary to point out that the two cases however, cannot be consolidated and tried together though the case instituted on private complaint is in respect of the same offence for which the charge-sheet has been filed against the first accused. The entire evidence in the case may not be the same. It may, therefore, be proper to record the evidence separately in both the cases unless the witnesses are common. The cases be tried one after another. In this context, we invite the attention of the parties and the trial Court to have regard to the principles laid down in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab'.
Thus, it is made clear that in order to have a joint trial or amalgamation of two cases identical in nature between the same parties, involving the same set of facts and evidence, it requires a finding and order on the basis of the above materials referred, according to the plain reading of Section 210 Cr.P.C. If the evidence let in both the cases are identical in nature and common, nothing is illegal for the trial Magistrate to have a joint trial but however, it can be made by a proper reasoning. Otherwise, it is not valid in law. With the result, Section 210, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. In the light of the above enunciated legal position and made applicable to the instant case, pertaining to the private complaint taken on file before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C. 2052 of 1984 was made amalgamated or clubbed with the present case without any reasoning whatsoever in the absence of specific finding for the amalgamation or clubbing, the same is not in consonance with the provision of law contained in Section 210, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the very approach adopted by the learned trial Magistrate is totally against the legal position enunciated in Section 210, Cr.P.C. and is clearly an erroneous one and on this ground, also the impugned order in Cr.R.C. No. 809 of 1987 has to be interfered with."

28. One cannot comprehend that with regard to the commission of any offence, there can be any parallel investigation by two independent agencies either by the Court or the other. Particularly, crime detection in the name of investigation is totally distinct and different from the concept of crime punishment. If two parallel investigation is ordered, then, it has to face its consequences. Therefore, parallel investigation is alien to the recognised proposition of law but the matter here is not akin to the parallel investigation. What Section 210, Cr.P.C. provides is that when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it is made to appear to the Magistrate during the course of inquiry or trial held by him that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the same subject matter, 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.