Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In view of the above, the Court below is directed to decide the application under Section 210 CrPC pending before it within a period of one month from today by passing an appropriate order taking recourse of the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C.
It is further directed that if the F.I.R. and complaint both relate to same offence and are covered under the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the application under section 210 Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid observations, the Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed."

(emphasis supplied) Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 23.12.2017 the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Mathura has rejected the second application filed under Section 210 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 2427 of 2017 (state case) and have issued non bailable warrant against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged that the learned Magistrate has completely erred in rejecting the application filed by the applicant. Relying on Section 210 Cr.P.C., it has been stated - undisputedly the fact that the allegations made in the prosecution both in the state case as also in the complaint case is one of the same. Since admittedly the charge sheet in the state case had been submitted earlier, on 26.12.2014, and cognizance had also been taken earlier on 27.01.2015, the only course open in law was for the complaint case proceedings to be tried together with the state case and those proceedings should not have been allowed to be continued independently. Strong reliance has been placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Joseph Vs. Joseph reported in 1982 Cri.L.J. 595 wherein  section 210 Cr.P.C. has been interpreted and it has been held as below:

It did not remain open to the applicant to raise the same issue again, in the same proceeding. Undeniably, it was open to the applicant to question the summoning order, in the complaint case, amongst others, on the basis of section 210 Cr.P.C. Such objection was raised and specifically rejected. Once that challenge failed and such decision attained finality, it no longer remained open to the applicant to again agitate that issue, by filing a separate application under section 210 Cr.P.C.

In any case, as a fact, the applicant again raised that issue by filing a specific application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. in the complaint case proceeding. That objection was also rejected. The applicant appears to have filed a criminal revision against such rejection order dated 29.6.2016. However, at present it appears from the arguments as advanced that such revision was also dismissed on 17.3.2017. That order has also attained finality.

Thus the issue did not survive for any further adjudication. In any case, the second application filed by the applicant under Section 210 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate wherein the State case, was misconceived but ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable and perhaps it would have been dismissed as such but for the direction issued by this Court in the second 482 Cr.P.C. application filed by the applicant.

Even otherwise, the language of Section 210 Cr.P.C. does not help the applicant. In the first place, the provision applies to a proceeding pending in a complaint case. Thus, the provisions would have to be invoked before the same Magistrate. It appears from the language of Section 210(1) Cr.P.C. that the power has to be exercised when it appears to the learned Magistrate in such case that an investigation by the police is in progress on the subject matter of inquiry or trial that may be pending before him upon a complaint case. In such a situation, that learned Magistrate shall stay the proceeding of the inquiry and trial before him and call for a report from the police official conducting the investigation. This much is plain and clear from the language of section 210(1) Cr. P.C. That sub-section clearly provides, for the provision to apply, it must be made to appear to the Magistrate before whom a case has been instituted otherwise than by way of a police report that an investigation by the police is pending. Such a Magistrate can be none other than the Magistrate hearing the complaint case. It would be absurd to hold otherwise, besides such interpretation can never arise on a plain reading of the statute.