( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 29-5-1978 passed by the addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Crl. Rev. No. 66/1978 on the file of his court whereby he has set aside the order dated 13-10-1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mudhol in C. C. No 491 /1978 directing the issue of process against respondents 1 and 2 who are accused 4 and 5 respectively in the complaint filed before the Magistrate. One Hanmappa Ramappa Paramanatti, of Mirji taluk Mudhol was attacked on the road between Mallapur and Miraji at about 3-30 p. m. on 31-7 78 and was hacked to death. On the same day, on information furnished about the said incident by one Bhimappa Mareppa doddanavar, the petitioner, who claims to be a brother of the deceased Hanmappa ramappa Paramanatti lodged a complaint to the police, Mahalingpur Police Station. ( 2 ) ON the basis of his complaint the Head constable incharge of the police station registered a case in crime No. 52/1978 for the offence punishable under Ss. 147, 148 and 302 read with S. 149 IPC, against five persons including respondents 2 and 3 and took up investigation of the case. However, during the course of investigation the complainant suspected the bona fides of the police and the likelioood of the police not sending some of the accused for trial. ( 3 ) HE therefore filed a private complaint before the Magistrate against all the five persons named as accused in the complaint lodged to the police. He filed that complaint on 18-8-1978. The learned Magistrate, who recorded the sworn statement of the complainant under S. 200 Cr. P. C. , on coming to know that investigation of the same offence by the police was already in progress, acting under S. 210 Cr. P. C. stayed further proceedings and called for the report of the police. When the police investigation was complete and the Sub inspector of Police submitttd a charge sheet before the Magistrate against A-1 yellappa and A-2 Venkappa Laxmappa, showing the remaining three as not sent up for trial, the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the offences on the police report as against A-1 and A-2, proceeded to inquire into the complaint before him, so far as the remaining three accused were concerned. He recorded the statement of one witness, examined on behalf of the complainant on 5-10-1978 and another witness on 13-10-1978 and being of the view that there were sufficient grounds to proceed, he ordered issue of process as against the Respondents 2 and 3, who were arraigned as accused A-4 and a-5 in the complaint. Being aggrieved, when Respondents 2 and 3 (A-4 and A-5) approached the Sessions Judge in revision questioning the correctness of the issue of process against them, the learned Sessions judge being of the view that the provisions of S. 210 Cr. P. C. were complete bar against the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences on the complaint, after taking cognizance of the offence on the police report, having set aside the order of issue of process, the complainant has come up in revision to this court. It may also be mentioned that the learned Magistrate, in the meanwhile having committed the case as against A-l and a-2, to the Court of Session, for inquiry and trial, on I. A. II filed by the complainant, the further proceedings in the Sessions Case have been stayed. In view of the contentions advanced by mr. K. Channabasappa learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Shanthanu Patil appearing for Respondents 2 and 3, what requires to be considered is : whether the view taken by the sessions Judge that the provisions of S. 210 Cr. P. C. were bar against the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences on the complaint is correct. S. 210 Cr. P. C. which deals with the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence reads as follows :" (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 S. 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. "these are new provisions and the object behind enacting these provisions is to aviod interference by private persons in the course of justice and the investigation of the case by the police, as also to avoid taking of an acquittal by collusive actions by the parties interested, before the police completed the investigation of the case. ( 4 ) NEVERTHELESS, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that these provisions of 210 Cr. P. C. were complete bar against the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on the private complaint, after he having taken cognizance of the offences on the police report, seems to be not correct. While under subsection (1) of S, 210 in a case instituted on complaint whenever it is made to appear to a Magistrate during the course of inquiry or trial that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the same offence, which is the subject matter of inquiry or trial held by him, it is obligatory on the Magistrate to stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial, call for the report of the police in the matter; under sub-section (2) where the magistrate takes cognizance of any offence on a police report under S. 173 against any person, who is accused in the complaint case, it is no longer necessary for him to inquire into the complaint case separately. He can straightaway inquire into the police case, as if both were instituted on police report But however, where he does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, or the report does not relate to any of the accused in the complaint case, as provided under sub-section (3) of S. 210, it is open for the Magistrate to proceed with the inquiry or trial stayed by him. The combined effect of these provisions is : where the accused mentioned in the police report and those mentioned in the private complaint are one and the same, the case instituted on the private complaint stands merged with the police case, and no separate inquiry in the complaint case is necessary. The Magistrate has to inquire into and try both the cases together, as if they were instituted on police report. However, where the accused mentioned in the police report and those mentioned in the complaint case are different or only some are common nd others different, the Magistrate has to proceed with the inquiry or trial of the case as against those all or the remaining accused in the case instituted on the private complaint. Here in the case on hand, though all the five accused were mentioned in the complaint and were also named in the complaint lodged to the police, the police submitted charge sheet only as against A-1 and A-2. The Magistrate having not taken cognizance of the offences on the police report as against the remaining three accused persons, it was competent for him to proceed with the inqniry as aginst those remafining three accused mentioned in the complaint. This is exactly what the magistrate had done and proceeded to inquire into the complaint as against the remaining three and directed to issue process against the two respondents (A-4 and A-5 ). There was no error committed by the Magistrate. It is also relevant to mention here that where in a case instituted on a private complaint the offences are exclusively triable by the court of Session, it is obligatory on the Magistrate under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 202 Cr. P. C. , to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (2) of S. 202 Cr. P. C. , to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. The magistrate who had taken cognizance of the offeace on the private complaint and had stopped the proceedings in view of s. 210, had rightly proceeded to make inquiry as against the remaining three accused and record the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant, since the evidence given by the complainant as also the witnesses disclosed a prima facie case against A-4 and A-5, the respondents 2 and 3 herein, the Magistrate was perfectly justified in directing the issue of process as against them. There was no error committed by him. Therefore the learned Sessions Judge was not right in interfering with the order passed by the magistrate, on an erroneous assumption that S. 210 was a bar against the Magistrate proceeding to inquire into the offence on the complaint. The order passed by the sessions Judge is therefore liable to be set aside. The petition is allowed. The order passed by the Sessions Judge is set aside. ( 5 ) THE matter is remanded back to the magistrate. He shall commit the case of the accused A-4 and A-5 to the court of sessions after completing the formalities as required under Section 208 Cr. P. C. --- *** --- .