Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. As such, the facts of this case are entirely different to the cases of Rosy and Birendra K. Singh (supra) relied upon by the petitioner.

24. It is a matter of record that in the entire judgment in Rosy's Case (Supra) no discussion has taken place about the provisions contained under Section 210 Cr.P.C. It is true that on a very strict reading of Section 210 Cr.P.C. one can say that such procedure is contemplated to be followed in a case in which earlier a complaint is filed and thereafter a Police challan is also filed. But even if that may not be so, if both the things are done together which has been done in the present case to say that provisions contained under Section 210 Cr.P.C. are not attracted would make the reading of Section 210 Cr.P.C.

14. However, under sub-section (2) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C., the word 'offence' appears to have been used to indicate a particular transgression labelled as a particular offence under IPC or any other law. It is obvious from the fact that normally when the Court takes cognizance of an offence, it does not refer to taking cognizance of the whole incident in which offences are committed but to particular violations, which have been defined as specific offences. Inasmuch as the object of the provision appears to be as stated above to avoid enquiries or trials sought to be initiated on two different footings, namely, the complaint and the police report on parallel tracks leading to conflicting results, obviously it is the commonality of the incident which are the subject matters of the complaint and the first information report under investigation by the police and not the labels of a particular transgression of law affixed by the complainant in the complaint or in the first information report which, if it were not so, the provisions of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. can be evaded by a mere device of labelling the transaction with different offences. As stated above in this case, the stage of staying the proceedings in the complaint case under sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C., has passed and the stage for calling for a report from the police has also been passed inasmuch as the police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been filed already. The provision in sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. has been made as stated above for preventing parallel enquiries or trials. Where a question as to application of the provisions under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. arises at certain stage of enquiry in the complaint case or after the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the police, it cannot be said that because the stage for invoking sub-Section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. has crossed, the other provisions under it are not applicable.

29. In view of the aforesaid, it is necessary to give a purposive and harminous interpretation to the provision contained under Section 210 Cr.P.C. in the facts of this case. Merely because the Police investigation was conducted prior to the filing of the complaint, it cannot be said that the situation as contemplated under Section 210 Cr.P.C. was not attracted. Thus, when the Magistrate took cognizance and committed the matter to Sessions that also after supplying copies of the statements recorded under Section 161 by the Police coupled with copies of the documents seized during the course of investigation to the accused persons before committing their case to the Sessions, he followed not only the complaint procedure but also the procedure as contemplated under Section 210 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it was not a case where there was necessity of recording the statement of the witnesses prior to the stage of committal as contemplated under Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. more so because it was a compaint filed by a public servant and which was accompanied with the report of Police investigation which was complete in itself enabling the Court to satisfy as to whether prima facie a case was made out or not. Further the prejudice if any which may have been caused to the accused persons in such a case, as is contemplated under Section 207/208 Cr.P.C., was also not there because of supply of the documents and copies of the statements.

30. Moreover, if one goes by the judgment in Rosy's case (supra) and follow the judgment delivered by Justice Shah, this position becomes crystal clear as held by Justice J.D. Jain in Frank Dalton Larkins case (supra) that in the eventuality of the complaint filed by a Public Servant accompanied with the report of investigation, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. along with the copies of documents, copies whereof have been supplied to the accused, the case has to be tried in accordance with Section 210 Cr.P.C. and in such a matter remanding back of a case for recording the statement of witnesses under Sub Section (2) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. does not arise and as such, the procedure prescribed under the proviso to Section 202 (2) is not mandatory and thus, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge dated 16.11.2007 dismissing the application moved on behalf of the petitioner to remand back the case to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.