Allahabad High Court
Praveen Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 December, 2015
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment reserved on : 20.11.2015
Judgment delivered on : 01.12.2015
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31416 of 2015
Applicant :- Praveen Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash entire proceedings of complaint case no.1369 of 2013 (Mahendra Pal Vs. Praveen Kumar and another) under sections 307, 436, 504 IPC, P.S. Bihargarh, Distt. Saharanpur and State Case No.1082 of 2014 (State Vs. Praveen Kumar and another) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Saharanpur as well as order dated 22.9.2015 passed by the concerned Magistrate whereby the application for discharge moved by the applicants in the aforesaid case has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that initially an NCR was lodged against the applicants. Later on, on the basis of medical evidence, matter was investigated by the concerned police and charge-sheet was filed against the applicants for the offence under sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC. The complainant also moved the complaint and the court concerned after recording the evidence summoned the applicants for the offence under sections 307, 436, 504 IPC. In the charge-sheet and in the complaint, date and time of the offence were the same. The trial Court ought to have stayed the complaint proceedings because an application had been moved to stay the proceedings of the complaint case. The trial Court ignoring the specific provision provided under section 210 Cr.P.C., rejected the application observing that sommoning order passed in the complaint relates to the sessions triable offences. Hence, both the cases shall be committed to sessions court consolidating them. It was also observed by the court concerned that applicants have not obtained bail, hence they must first obtain the bail so that committal proceedings be completed. It was further submitted that the observation recorded by the court concerned dealing with the matter is illegal. The complaint was filed colouring the facts. Thus, complaint itself was barred.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants referred to the provisions of Section 210 (2) Cr.P.C.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that charge-sheet has been filed in the matter on 19.12.2013. Complaint was filed on 16.12.2013. Application moved by the applicants to discharge them was rightly rejected as the accused-persons were summoned for different offences committed by them, which were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Observation recorded by the court concerned regarding bail is also correct. Since the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to try the complaint case, hence he has rightly opined that case would be committed for sessions trial. It was also submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
In the present matter, as is clear from perusal of the record that on the date of filing of the complaint, matter was pending for investigation. Accused-applicants were summoned on the complaint for the offence under section 436, 307, 504 IPC. Charge-sheet had been filed for the offence under sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC. Only one offence under section 504 IPC is common in both the cases.
Section 210 Cr.P.S. runs as follows :
"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.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, 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.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code."
If the fact of the present case and the submission raised by the parties are compared with the provision of Section 210 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the charge-sheet and the complaint both were before the court concerned. Discharge application was moved taking recourse of the provision of Section 210 Cr.P.C. The finding of the court concerned in the order dated 22.9.2015 is that the case would be committed consolidating both the matters.
If the provision of Section 210 (2) Cr.P.C. is compared with the finding of the court concerned passed in the order dated 22.9.2015 and also with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I find no any illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order. There is no justification to invoke the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. Both the cases shall be tried together and applicants have to obtain bail in the offences mentioned in the summoning order. Complaint is not barred in the matter as is clear from Section 210 Cr.P.C. Only requirement of the law is that in such a situation, both the cases shall be tried together in accordance with section 210 (2) Cr.P.C. Thus, finding no substance in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and in view of the above, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as the impugned order is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
The Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
Dtd./- : 01.12.2015
ss
