ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS assail correctness of the order passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara (in short 's. D. J. . M. ') in I. C. C. No. 75 of 1987 in taking cognizance u/s. 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'i. P. C. ') against them. ( 2 ) FACTUAL antecedents in short are that on 13-2-1987 one Srikanta Kumar Das, son of present opposite party No. 1, submitted a written report in Nikirai Police Out-Post to the effect that at about 9 a. m. that day while his father was returning after taking bath, he was assaulted by some of the present petitioners and when his mother ran to the place of occurrence she was also assaulted. Allegations of brick batting and pelting of stones during the course of incident were also made. Alleging inaction by the police, he filed a complaint petition on 13-3-1987 in the court of the S. D. J. M. , Kendrapara, which was registered as I. C. C. No. 75/87. An inquiry was undertaken u/s. 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code' ). Several witnesses were examined on 3-3-1987 and 22-4-1987. During pendency of the complaint case charge -sheet was submitted on 27-7-1987 u/ss. 447, 341, 323, 294/34, IPC in G. R. Case No. 120 of 1987, and cognizance was taken on the said date against petitioner Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 17. On 9-9-1987 cognizance was taken u/s. 395, IPC against present petitioners and process was issued to them. The order taking cognizance is subject-matter of assail in this revision application. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS assail correctness of the order on two grounds, viz. (i) the learned S. D. J. M. should have stayed inquiry or trial on the basis of the complaint petition in terms of S. 210 (1) of the Code and he having not done so the whole proceeding is vitiated; and (ii) all the witnesses named in the complaint petition having not been examined, cognizance as taken is illegal. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, however, submits that the provisions of S. 210 (1) have no application to facts of the case and also examination of witnesses named in the complaint petition is not a statutory mandate. ( 4 ) THE points urged need careful consideration. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, however, submits that the provisions of S. 210 (1) have no application to facts of the case and also examination of witnesses named in the complaint petition is not a statutory mandate. ( 4 ) THE points urged need careful consideration. Coming to the question whether S. 210 has application to the facts of the case it may be stated that the object of S. 210 is to prevent miscarriage of justice. This section was inserted in the Code on the recommendation of the Joint Committee of Parliament with the following object:"it has been brought to the notice of the Committee that sometimes when a serious case is under investigation by the police, some of the persons concerned file a complaint and quickly get an order of acquittal either by collusion or otherwise. Thereupon the investigation of the case becomes infructuous leading to miscarriage of justice in some cases. To avoid this, the Committee has provided that where a complaint is filed and the Magistrate has information that the police is also investigating the same office (offence?) the Magistrate shall stay the complaint case. If the police report (under S. 173) is received in the case, the Magistrate should try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report. But if no such report is received, the Magistrate would be free to dispose of the complaint case. This new provision is intended to secure that private complainants do not interfere with the course of justice. "sub-sec. (1) provides that if it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate during an inquiry of trial relating to a complaint case that investigation by the police is going on in respect of the same offence (underlining by me) to which the complaint case relates, he must stay the proceedings of the complaint case and call for a report from the Police Officer who is conducting such investigation. Word 'offence' has been defined in S. 2 (n) of the Code to mean any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time-being in force. In other words, it is the act or omission which has to be common. Word 'offence' has been defined in S. 2 (n) of the Code to mean any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time-being in force. In other words, it is the act or omission which has to be common. As long as the facts under investigation by Police include facts mentioned in the complaint case, then it will make no difference for the police case to the complaint that offences not mentioned in the complaint have been committed by the accused. In regard to common accused persons, the provision in sub-sec. (2) applies while in regard to those who are not in the police case the provision in sub-sec. (3) applies. See (1976) 42 Cut LT 107, Tikaram Agarwalla v. State and ( 1980) 49 Cut LT 519: ( 1981 Cri LJ 541), Chintamani Parida v. Jadumani alias Jadunath Nayak. As observed by this Court in (1989) 68 Cut LT 355: Banamali Panda v. Bharat Chandra Barik, S. 210 of the Code deals with a situation of same offence and not same occurrence. Further S. 210 mandates calling for a report from police and stay of complaint case where it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate during an inquiry or trial before him that investigation by police is in progress. Section 210 (2) comes into operation if a report is made by the Investigating Police Officer u/s. 173 and on such report cognizance is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case. If such is the situation, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of police report as if both cases were instituted on a police report. Sub-sec. (3) provides that 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. This sub-section is in the nature of an exception to sub-section (2) and provides the cases where the complaint case shall be tried separately, under the procedure applicable to a complaint case. This sub-section is in the nature of an exception to sub-section (2) and provides the cases where the complaint case shall be tried separately, under the procedure applicable to a complaint case. These are: (a) where though the facts are common, the police report does not proceed against the accused named in the complaint case at all; or (b) where the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence at all on the police report. Considered in that background, I do not find any infirmity in the order taking cognizance passed by the learned S. D. J. M. ( 5 ) THE other question that needs consideration is whether all the witnesses named in the complaint petition having not been examined, the order is vitiated. As observed by me in the case of' Shankar Roul v. Ramakanta Swain. Criminal Revn. No. 656 of 1987 disposed of on 1-7-1991 expression 'all witnesses' does not mean witnesses named in the complaint petition. It obviously relates to all witnesses whom the complainant wants to examine. The purpose is that if any person who is not examined at that stage is sprung as a witness during trial the complainant would be prejudiced. The only requirement is that a statement has to be made by the complainant that he does not want to examine any further witness except those produced. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 makes a positive statement during hearing of the case before me that the complainant will not examine any witness in addition to those who have been examined already. In view of this undertaking I do not feel that there is any contravention of requirement of S. 202 (2) proviso of the Code which mandates examination of witnesses in a case triable by the Court of Session. In that view of the matter, I do not find any scope for interference in this revision application, which is accordingly, rejected. Revision dismissed.