Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 557 (PAT)

Upendra Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2002-04-29

BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH

body2002
Judgment Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, J. 1. Since no inquiry was initiated by the Court below in Complaint Case No. 134 C/2000, notwithstanding submission of report u/s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), in a police case registered with identical allegation, the aggrieved complainant made this a debatable issue before the Court below and filed a petition on 15-9-2000 to proceed with the complaint case to hold inquiry and to put the accused on trial. 2. The facts of the case may be narrated with brevity as the same has been spelt out in details in the order which is impugned before this Court. The petition of complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 134 C of 2000 was filed by the complainant Upendra Yadav on 17th May, 2000 against, five named persons and also some unknown persons for an incident that allegedly took place on the 12th May, 2000, in which not less than 10 persons suffered casualties, white 4-5 persons suffered injuries on their persons. As usual, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, sent a copy of the complaint petition to Subdivisional Officer, Lakhisarai, for instruction of a case thereon under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. in case no case had been instituted with respect to such offences, and to hold investigation and submit a report before the Court. Pursuant to receipt of petition of complaint, it appears that the Subdivisional Police Officer, submitted a report to the Court that with identical offence, the police case bearing Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 151 of 2000 had already been registered at the Police Station on 15th May, 2000, in which the complainant of the complaint case was also a witness and hence, considering the institution of a police also for the same occurrence to be a hurdle in the investigation of the offence, he submitted a report to the Court. What happened thereafter, is not in dispute, as it is shown that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, obviously, u/s. 210, Cr.P.C. stayed proceeding of the complaint case till submission of final form in Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 151 of 2000. After the commencement of the investigation in the Police case, the Police laid charge sheet before the Court while recommending trial of some of the accused persons, leaving many of them beyond zone of trial. After the commencement of the investigation in the Police case, the Police laid charge sheet before the Court while recommending trial of some of the accused persons, leaving many of them beyond zone of trial. Since the complaint case was not acted upon, the aggrieved complainant moved the Court for initiation of inquiry so that the accused named therein may be booked and put on trial. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, on submission of Police report, took cognizance of the offence and on being moved for initiation of inquiry in the complaint case, negatived contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the petitioner, holding that the Police case had been committed to the Court of Session and no protest petition had yet been put on the record by the aggrieved complainant. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate also held that there could not have been a case u/s. 210(3), Cr.P.C. and there was no good reason to proceed with the complaint once cognizance in police case has been taken by the Court. Other reasons assigned by the Court below was that since the Police report submitted u/s. 173, Cr.P.C. relates to the accused persons named in the present complaint case, there cannot be application of sec. 210(3), Cr.P.C. and on these premises, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rushed to the conclusion that since remedy under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was available to the aggrieved complainant, he can well move the Court of Session to put the accused on trial, in case evidences were available on the record. 3. Various contentions were urged at Bar about the finding recorded by the Court below being not based on sound reasonings, in view of provisions contained under Sec. 210(3), Cr.P.C. which explicitly 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 the Code. This fact cannot be lost sight of that the offences alleged in the petition of complaint and also the Police case were almost identical. The Police report did not relate to any accused in the complaint case, and in backdrop of this situation, the provisions of sec. This fact cannot be lost sight of that the offences alleged in the petition of complaint and also the Police case were almost identical. The Police report did not relate to any accused in the complaint case, and in backdrop of this situation, the provisions of sec. 210 Cr.P.C. can be well invoked and reliance on this score can be placed on a decision reported in 1981 Cr.L.J. 541 Chintamani Parida and Ors. V/s. Jadumani and Anr. in which observations were made by the Court that where the complaint case and police case are in respect of the same offences, the accused persons in complaint case, who have not been involved in the Police case, can be proceeded against. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, fairly conceded that in view of explicit provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, inquiry on the complaint case may commence. However, he has reservation that since the Police case has already been committed to the Court of Session, in all fairness and for the ends of justice, it would be proper that the trial of both the cases should be held before the same Court and the judgment be also pronounced on the same day. 5. I feel that if the inquiry is made in the complaint case, for which I direct and in case commission of an offence, triable by Court of Session, is made out, all precautions should be made for holding trial of both the cases in the same Court. However, I do not feel it proper to direct the Court for pronouncement of judgment on the same day, and with these observations, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Court below will now hold inquiry in the complaint case and shall proceed in accordance with law.