Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Section 210 of CrPC reads as 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 progress in relation to the offence which is the subject- matter 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 matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.

8. Section 210 (2) of CrPC provides that where the Magistrate has already taken the cognizance of an offence upon the charge-sheet, then 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.

9. When this Court by order dated 24.09.2009 passed in M.Cr.C.No.1799/2009 had already directed the Trial Court to proceed as per the provisions of Section 210 (2) of CrPC then it would be clear that both the cases are to be tried as if they have been instituted upon the police report. Under these circumstances, the contention of the applicants that before framing charges against the applicants No.1 to 4 on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant, the Trial Court should have adopted the procedure as laid down in Section 244 of CrPC, cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no procedural illegality was committed by the Trial Court while framing charges in the case by following the procedure as if both the cases have been instituted upon the police report.

19. Under these circumstances, considering the provisions of Section 210 of CrPC as well as under Section 8 of MPDVPK Act, 1981, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court did not commit any mistake while rejecting the application filed by the applicants for recalling of the order of framing charges.

20. It is important to mention here that the order dated 15.09.2015 has not been challenged by the applicants in this petition. The prayer clause of petition reads as under:-

**vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fouez izkFkZuk gS fd vkosndx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 482 n-iz-la- dk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; Jh f'kodkar xks;y th ¼fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k eqjSuk½ ds le{k yafcr fo'ks"k l= izdj.k Ø-2@09 ¼ifjokn i=½ cmueku nsosUnz M.MkSfr;k fo:) cyohj flag vkfn esa fnukad 03-01-2009 dks vkosndx.k ds fo:) fy;k x;k laKku rFkk fnukad 18-05-2010 dks vkosndx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 395] 324] 149 Hkknfo rFkk /kkjk 11@13 ,e-ih-Mh-Ogh-ih-ds- ,DV ds rgr fojfpr vkjksi rFkk v/khuLFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k vkosndx.k ds fo:) lapkfyr leLr dk;Zokgh vikLr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsaA**
21. Thus, it is clear that the applicants have merely challenged the orders dated 03.01.2009 and 18.05.2010 against which the petitions under Section 482 of CrPC were already filed and the order dated 03.01.2009 was affirmed by this Court by passing an order dated 24.09.2009 in M.Cr.C.No.1799/2009 and a direction was given to proceed further as per the provisions of Section 210 of CrPC.

Similarly, the order dated 18.05.2010 was also impliedly affirmed by this Court by passing order dated 17.07.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.8700/2011 in which a liberty was given to the applicants to point out the procedural illegality clearly shows that the applicants cannot be allowed to reagiate the same grievance again and again by filing successive petitions under Section 482 of CrPC.