Allahabad High Court
Satpal @ Satyapal Singh vs State Of U.P.And 4 Others on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24417 of 2021
Applicant :- Satpal @ Satyapal Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the state. Perused the material on record.
This application has been filed for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 2.2.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagina, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2020 (Suchcha Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) by which set aside the summoning order dated 6.9.2017 in Complaint Case No. 669 of 2017 (Satpal Singh Vs. Suchcha Singh) under sections 427, 379, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Badhapur, District Bijnor and the matter has been remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh order as well as to stay the further proceedings.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the complainant and a complaint was filed on 15.6.2017 by the applicant against the opposite party no. 2 to 5. After recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses, under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.,the summoning order was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.9.2017 under sections 427, 379, 504, 506 I.P.C. against opposite party no. 2 to 5 exercising the power given under section 204 Cr.P.C. Before moving the complaint before the A.C.J.M., a NCR was lodged by the complainant on 12.6.2017 against the opposite party no. 2 to 5 but the applicant never moved any application under section 155(2) Cr.P.C. for investigation in the NCR. Neither the investigation officer seeks any permission regarding the investigation in NCR, which is lodged by applicant/complainant against opposite party no. 2 to 5. Being aggrieved with the summoning order dated 6.9.2017, opposite party no. 2 to 5 approached before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor by means of Revision No. 35 of 2020 (Suchcha Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) in which the revisional court quashed the summoning order on the basis that under section 210 Cr.P.C. It is the mandatory provision and incumbent duty of the Magistrate before passing any summoning order, it is imperative to call the report from police station concerned and on this ground he quashed the summoning order. One of the main contention of the applicant is that under section 210 Cr.P.C. there is no such provision that if the NCR is lodged then the proceedings of complaint case could not initiated against the accused / opposite party no. 2 to 5. Section 210 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"Section 210 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
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
1. Subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 19, for cl. (a) (w. e. f. 18- 12- 1978 ).
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. CHAP THE CHARGE. CHAPTER XVII THE CHARGE A.- Form of charges"
Learned A.G.A. is also agree that even if N.C.R. lodged against the accused persons that there is no any impediment to move the complaint before the Magistrate and Magistrate may pass summoning order against the accused after perusing the evidence available on record. The NCR does not bar the proceedings of complaint case.
On perusal of section 210 Cr.P.C., it is clear that section 210 Cr.P.C. prescribed procedure is those cases in which the investigation is also conducted by the investigation officer, it is not the mandatory duty of the Magistrate before passing the summoning order, call the report regarding investigation. Even if investigation is going on then the summoning order may be passed. Section 210 Cr.P.C. is come into picture when in same subject matter, complaint case as well as charge-sheet was submitted on same cause of action and same incident then it is the mandatory duty that both the cases amalgamated under section 210 Cr.P.C. Section 210 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that after investigation, police officer filed report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and the cognizance order passed by the Magistrate against any person, who is an accused in the complaint case then Magistrate shall inquire into or try both the complaint cases and the case arising out of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In this case, no such any report on record that the investigation has already pending or the report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. submitted before the Magistrate. Question of stay of complaint case arises only when the investigation in N.C.R. is pending but in this case there is no investigation pending in the N.C.R., which was lodged by the applicant. So in my considered opinion, the conclusion arrived by learned Sessions Court, is devoid of merit and liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the order dated 2.2.2021, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor, is hereby quashed and the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2022
Vibha Singh
