Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Counsel for the petitioner would find fault with this order, terming this to be illegal and in violation of provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C whereas counsel for the respondent would equally justify this order under the same provisions i.e. Section 210 Cr.P.C. Both the learned counsel have placed before me number of precedents in support of their respective pleas.
As per counsel for the petitioner, the complaint case and the State case can only be clubbed and tried together, if the Magistrate, during the course of dealing with the complaint case, comes to know that investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence, which is subject matter of enquiry or trial held by him, when he shall stay the proceedings of such enquiry or trial and call for the report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. The submission is that the investigation in the police case was already concluded and challan has been presented and hence, the complaint, which was filed subsequently, could not be either clubbed or treated as a case filed by the State, as has been ordered by the Court. In contrast, counsel for the respondent would Crl. Misc. M No.18899 of 2005 (O&M) :{ 10 }:
cognizance of the offence is taken against even only one of the person accused in the complaint case. Where both the ingredients are satisfied, the procedure to be followed in the two cases is as if both were instituted in a police report."

It is further observed in this case that it is the commonality of the incident, which is the subject matter of complaint and the FIR under investigation by the police and not the label of particular transgression of law fixed by the complainant in the complaint or FIR, which if it were not so, the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C can be evaded by a mere device of labelling the transaction to the different offences. Accordingly, it is observed that for application of Section 210 (2) Cr.P.C., the two conditions, which are to be satisfied are, where on a report of the police a cognizance of some offences has been taken by the Magistrate and any of the person accused in the complaint case is amongst the accused against whom the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report. It is accordingly observed that merely because the police investigation was conducted prior to filing of the complaint, it can not be said that the situation as contemplated under Section 210 Cr.P.C, was not attracted. Need and necessity to give a purposive and harmonious interpretation to the provisions contained in this Section in the facts of case would be there. In fact, this would meet the objection being raised by counsel for the petitioner to a large extent.

"To deal with this first contention, it is observed that provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. Can always be invoked for clubbing the FIR case and the complaint case. The helpless wife could not wait in case FIR is not registered. Therefore, she has taken recourse to alternative remedy available to her. In complaint case, all the three accused have been summoned but in the FIR only two persons were found guilty. Therefore, the only option available is that both the complaint case and FIR case be clubbed under Section 210 Cr.P.C. Thus, necessary directions are issued to the Area Magistrate to club both the cases under Section 210 Cr.P.C."

Let us examine the facts in the present case in the light of law that would emerge from the ratio in the cases noted above.

The purpose and applicability of Section 210 Cr.P.C. and Crl. Misc. M No.18899 of 2005 (O&M) :{ 25 }:

the distinction between sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) thereof has clearly been noticed in various judgements noted above. This provision is aimed at preventing harassment to the accused and to avoid the accused being waxed to defend himself twice in the same case. It is to obviate anomalies that may arise if these two cases on the basis of the complaint and FIRs are tried separately. The condition on which the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C can be invoked have also been noticed above and these are the pendency of the complaint for enquiry or trial, the investigation by the police or the report must have been made under Section 173 Cr.P.C., where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence against a person who is accused in a complaint case as well. This being the law and also the purpose, as was noticed by the Joint Parliament Committee, should govern the clubbing of the complaint case and the FIR case in the present case. The submission that investigation should be pending for putting in operation, the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., would apparently be against the purpose for which this Section has been enacted and this plea would not be in consonance with the statutory provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. Even the Joint Committee of Parliament has clearly noticed that if the police report (under Section 173 Cr.P.C) is received in the case, the Magistrate should try the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report together. Thus, the plea and the grounds urged by the petitioner to find fault with the order passed by the trial Judge are legally not tenable.