Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh @ Bitta vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088639
CRM-M No. 22267 of 2024
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 22267 of 2024
Date of Decision: 04.07.2024
Amandeep Singh @ Bi"a ...Pe$$oner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate
for the pe$$oner.
Ms. Swa$ Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Criminal COMI-9-2023 $tled "Balwant Singh vs Amandeep Singh @ Bi"a and
Complaint others."
No.
1. Seeking quashing of the complaint cap$oned above and the order of summoning
dated 18.10.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, vide which the Court had
discharged two of the accused; however, it summoned other accused, including the
pe$$oner. The pe$$oner, having been summoned, has come up before this Court under
Sec$on 482 CrPC.
2. To ascertain whether the order of issuing summons suffers from any prima facie
illegality and whether the pe$$on is worth issuing no$ce, this Court asked the State to
get instruc$ons, but the Court did not issue no$ce to the State, including the
complainant.
3. I have heard counsel for the pe$$oner and have gone through the pleadings, and
its analysis would lead to the following outcome. Pe$$oner and respondent No.2 had
filed cross cases regarding the quarrel, which had taken place on 13.12.2022. Based on
the pe$$oner's complaint, an FIR No.0204 was registered on 13.12.2022 for the
commission of an offense punishable under Sec$ons 323, 341, 295-A, and 148 IPC, 1860,
in which allega$ons were leveled against respondent No.2 and other persons named
Harpreet Singh and Jaspreet Singh. However, on 14.12.2022, a general diary no.34 was
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088639
entered in the same Police Sta$on, i.e., Police Sta$on Adampur, based on the
informa$on supplied by respondent No.2 against the pe$$oner. Since the allega$ons
disclosed by respondent No.2 did not prima facie find any allega$on truthful against the
pe$$oner, no ac$on was taken. AIer that, respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint
against the pe$$oner and four more accused before the concerned Magistrate at
Jalandhar. Vide impugned order dated 18.10.2023, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class did
not find evidence against accused No.4 and 5, whereas he found sufficient evidence to
proceed against accused No.1 to 3 and, consequently, summoned them for the offenses
under Sec$ons 323, 341, 506 IPC to face trial.
4. Aggrieved by such summons, the pe$$oner has come up before this Court.
5. The pe$$oner's Counsel submits that once an FIR was pending and the reference
to the FIR was part of the complaint Annexure P-3, which would show that the Judicial
Magistrate was aware of the pendency of the FIR, the Judicial Magistrate should have
waited for the outcome of the police report and should have stayed the proceedings on
complaint. In a nutshell, counsel for the pe$$oner argued that the Magistrate did not
comply with mandatory provisions of Sec$on 210 CrPC, and as such, the order of
issuance of summons is illegal, non-applica$on of mind, and deserves to be set aside and
quashed.
6. Counsel for the State submits that the FIR, which was registered based on the
pe$$oner's complaint, contains the pe$$oner's version about the same occurrence, and
as such, there was no reason for the Magistrate to wait for the comple$on of the
inves$ga$on as is clear on plain and simple interpreta$on of Sec$on 210(2) CrPC, 1973.
7. Analyzing the above arguments would lead to the following outcome. It would
be relevant to extract Sec$on 210 CrPC, which reads as follows: -
210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and
police inves$ga$on in respect of the same offence.--(1) When in
a case ins$tuted otherwise than on a police report (hereinaIer
referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the
Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him,
that an inves$ga$on by the police is in progress in rela$on to the
offence which is the subject-ma"er 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 ma"er from the police officer
conduc$ng the inves$ga$on.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088639
(2) If a report is made by the inves$ga$ng police officer under
sec$on 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 ins$tuted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the
complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of
any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry
or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
8. A plain and straighQorward reading of Sec$on 210 CrPC points out the
Magistrate's obliga$on to ascertain whether, on the allega$ons pertaining to the same
incident, at the same place, or in the same transac$on, an inves$ga$on is con$nuing
based on the informa$on supplied by one party and a criminal complaint is pending
based on the informa$on supplied by the opposite party, then the concerned Magistrate
has to a seek a report on the ma"er from the police officer conduc$ng the inves$ga$on.
However, when the complaint is made by the opposite party against whom an
inves$ga$on is ongoing, then there is no statutory mandate for the Magistrate to wait
and call for the report from the Police Officer conduc$ng the inves$ga$on or for the
Court, while dealing with the private complaint must wait for the outcome of the
inves$ga$on of the FIR registered on the informa$on of the opposite party. Thus, to
conclude, when an inves$ga$on is ongoing in a complaint/informa$on made by a party
and the same party has also filed a private complaint regarding the same
incident/transac$on, then it becomes obligatory for the Magistrate to call for the police
report before proceeding further in the private complaint. However, when the complaint
regarding the same incident/transac$on has been filed by the party on whose
informa$on, the inves$ga$on is not being conducted and such party files a private
complaint, then there is no statutory obliga$on on the Magistrate to call for the police
report under S. 210(1) CrPC, 1973 but has to proceed under S. 210(3) CrPC, 1973.
9. In the present ma"er, both opposite par$es lodged complaints against each
other, and one resulted in FIR registra$on; on the other, no ac$on was taken and was
filed. The inves$ga$on in the FIR registered by the pe$$oner is pending. However, no
ac$on was taken in a complaint; as such, the private respondent filed a complaint and led
preliminary evidence, which led to the summoning of three accused and the discharge of
two accused.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088639
10. Given the above, there is no viola$on of S. 210(1) CrPC, 1973.
11. Even otherwise, I have gone through the impugned order, which is well-
reasoned and detailed. The concerned Magistrate was considerate enough to discharge
two of the other five accused, who were ini$ally not named in the complaint, and did not
issue any summons to them.
12. Consequently, the pe$$oner prima facie fails to make out a case to issue no$ce
to respondent No.2 or point out that the impugned order suffered from illegality.
13. However, it is clarified that since there is an FIR and complaint case arising out of
the same incident, the legal requirement is that both cases be taken simultaneously. In
Nathi Lal v. State of U"ar Pradesh., 1990 (Sup) SCC 145, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
holds,
[2]. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a ma"er
like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct
that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases
one aIer the other. AIer the recording of evidence in one
case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he
must reserve the judgment. ThereaIer he must proceed to
hear the cross case and aIer recording all the evidence he
must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that
case. The same learned Judge must thereaIer dispose of
the ma"ers by two separate judgments. In deciding each
of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in
that par$cular case. The evidence recorded in the cross
case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be
influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each
case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which
has been placed on record in that par$cular case without
being influenced in any manner by the evidence or
arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments
must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one aIer
the other.
14. Pe$$on stands dismissed. All pending applica$ons, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
04.07.2024
Jyo$ Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: YES.
4 of 4
