Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the present petitioner has preferred this revisional application praying for setting aside the order dated 06.01.2009 which is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C.

It appears from the impugned order dated 16.04.2008 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Midnapore in Misc. Case No. 66 of 2005 that he has rejected such prayer on the ground that the GR Case ended in charge sheet but the complaint case is pending for examination of witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C. So at such interlocutory stage it cannot be concluded that both the cases originated out of the self-same incident. Therefore, he directed to send back both the cases to the respective Courts with further direction to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim Midnapore to take up examination of the witnesses as early as possible and to issue process accordingly on consideration of available evidence and if it is found that both the cases are arising out of self-same incident and that the complaint is a sessions triable case, in that event the incident will get its maturity. While considering propriety of such order, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Paschim Midnapore in Criminal Revision No. 122 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009 has affirmed the order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the grounds that in the complaint case the complainant is Girish Chandra Mondal and the date of incident is 16.01.2003 and 17.01.2003 at early morning hours in between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. and the accused persons are 23 in numbers. In GR Case No. 58/03 it was found that the complainant is Laxmikanta Mondal and the accused persons are 29 in numbers but the date of incident is 16.01.2003 at 4 a.m. and the FIR was lodged on 16.01.2003 giving rise to Narayangarh P.S. case n. 6/03 which ultimately ended in charge sheet. But the complaint case was lodged on 21.04.2003 in which process has not yet been issued. Therefore, at this stage there is no scope for sending the complaint case to the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Paschim Midnapore for trying the same along with the police case. Since the complaint case is at inquiry stage, the Learned Revisional Court below is of the view that unless and until process is issued, there is no scope for thinking over the matter and the persons concerned cannot be treated as accused persons in the complaint case unless such process is issued. The right of the accused persons will accrue for trying both the complaint case and the police case by the same Court as and when they shall be summoned by the Learned Magistrate to appear before the Court after issue of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and from this point of view such application is premature so far as the complaint case is concerned. Therefore, the Learned Revisional Court below has held that the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Midnapore has rightly rejected the prayer for sending the complaint case pending before the Court of the Learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Midnapore to the Court of the Learned 4th Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Midnapore who is trying the GR Case No. 58/03 and from this point of view the order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality. Consequently, the revisional application was dismissed on contested without cost and order dated 16.04.2008 was passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Midnapore was affirmed.

I lay much emphasis upon the words "it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him", referred to in Sub-Section 1 of Section 210 Cr.P.C. It is claimed in the instant petition that a prayer was made before the Learned Magistrate trying the complaint case for analogous trial, stay of his proceeding and to call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation in the police case over the self-same incident. But no such petition or order thereon by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim Midnapore is forthcoming to substantiate such claim. On the contrary, from the order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Midnapore it will appear that such prayer was made before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at first for compliance of the statutory provisions laid down in Section 210 Cr.P.C. who was not competent to stay the proceedings pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Paschim Midnapore in the complaint case. In the present case the competent authority is the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim Midnapore to deal with the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C.

It is evident that the initial approach was made before a wrong forum and the revisional application was also preferred against such order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Midnapore ignoring this aspect. Accordingly, I hold that the findings of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Midnapore which was affirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paschim Midnapore is not in conformity with the spirit of Section 210(1) Cr.P.C. I also hold that application sub- Section (1) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. is to be made before the Learned Magistrate with whom such a complaint is lodged and he is to consider such prayer during the course of inquiry or trial. The words 'inquiry' or 'trial' have stretched the span and empowers a Magistrate to entertain such prayer at any stage of the proceedings. So in dealing with such matter the plea of premature application cannot be taken.

Question may be raised as to whether in a police case where investigation is not only in progress, as referred to in Section 210(1) Cr.P.C., but has also been completed such prayer can be entertained by the Magistrate dealing with the complaint case. The sprit of Section 210 Cr.P.C. is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and there is specific provision for joinder of charges in Sections 218, 219 and 220 Cr.P.C. If we make a harmonious construction of Sections 210, 218, 219 and 220 Cr.P.C. it will be abundantly clear that circumstances involved in the instant case will come under the purview of Section 210(1) Cr.P.C. If a contrary view is taken to limit scope of sub-Section (1) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation of the police case, harmonious construction of the code will be impaired. So, I hold that the words "investigation by the police is in progress" mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. should be liberally construed and extended meaning of the word "progress" should reach its finality up to the end of such investigation.