JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is a n application for refusing the order of the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate. Balasore. 2. Petitioners are accused persons in a complaint case registered as I.C.C. Case No. 37 of 1988. Prosecution case is that on 30th January, 1988; at about 8 A.M. while the complainant was white washing the village temple, Petitioners confronted and asked about the theft of electric service wire. When complainant expressed his ignorance about the same, Petitioners assaulted him being armed with knife, lathi and katari which resulted injuries on his body. Complainant went to the Police-station with a knife, left by the accused persons. On police requisition, he was examined and was thereafter, arrested and was forwarded to Court on the same day to be released on bail on 2nd February, 1988. Complainant fell ill, and was treated till 5-2-1988. After recovery, he went to the Police station to know the result of his report. However, investigating Agency refused to take any step in connection with his report. Accordingly, the complaint was filed. Learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of the complaint. Non-bailable warrants of' Arrest were ;issued against the Petitioners. 3. Petitioners assail the order taking cognisance on the ground that G.R. Case No. 47 of 1988 against the complainant and others is pending which arose out of the same and as such cognizance on, the basis of the complaint to issue process against them is bad in law which is liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. D.P. Dhal Samant, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there is no scope for taking cognizance on the complaint since a case is pending on a Police report in respect of the self same occurrence. He relied upon the decision reported in Bankabehari Modi and Ors. v. Ramawatar Saha ILR 1967 Cutt 73. This decision is distinguishable on facts. No decision has been cited-where in respect of the same occurrence prosecution has been initiated against the complainant and others and complaint is filed by one of the accused persons on the Police case. 5. He relied upon the decision reported in Bankabehari Modi and Ors. v. Ramawatar Saha ILR 1967 Cutt 73. This decision is distinguishable on facts. No decision has been cited-where in respect of the same occurrence prosecution has been initiated against the complainant and others and complaint is filed by one of the accused persons on the Police case. 5. Procedure to be followed, when there is a complaint case and Police investigation in respect of the same offence is provided for in Section 210 Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows: (I) 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 enquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such "inquiry of trial and call for a" report of the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer u/s 176 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 its 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. 6. Section 210, Code of Criminal Procedure. deals with a situation of some offence and not same occurrence. In the present, case, though the occurrence is the same, offence is not the same. Sub-section (3) makes it clear that in case the Police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate is to proceed with the enquiry or trial. This provision makes it clear that cognizance can be taken by the learned Magistrate where the G.R. case does not relate to any accused named in the complaint. Sub-section (3) makes it clear that in case the Police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate is to proceed with the enquiry or trial. This provision makes it clear that cognizance can be taken by the learned Magistrate where the G.R. case does not relate to any accused named in the complaint. Petitioners are not accused in the G.R. Case. Accordingly, I am inclined to hold that the learned Magistrate has not acted contrary to law in taking cognizance. I, however, make it clear that in case, learned Magistrate finds that one case is counter to the other, he shall hear the same one after the other, and the judgment in one case shall be reserved till the trial in the other is completed. 7. Subject to the aforesaid direction, this Criminal Revision is disposed of. Send back the lower court record at once. Revision dispossed of.