( 1 ) BOTH these revision petitions are directed against the order, dated 16. 5. 2000 passed by the JMFC, II Court, Mangalore, D. K. Dist, in P. C. No. 307/2000 regarding taking of cognizance and issuance of summons to the respondent on the ground that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal and that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to these cases are that the revision petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent on 4. 3. 2000 at 6 p. m. on the allegation that at about 4. 30 p. m. the respondent and other 30 members assembled in the Dist. Congress Committee (DCC), Mangalore, under the chairmanship of A. C. Bhandari discussing deeply as to who among 17 out of 21 successive candidates of Bajal Village Panchayath should be nominated for the posts. At that time, respondents all of a sudden trespassed into the meeting hall and some of them were armed with pen-knives and smooth round stones concealed in cloth bairas and Respondents 1 to 6 started questioning the petitioner and others in loud voice by saying who asked you to hold the meeting. What is the discussion you are doing, who had given you permission and so saying among the accused, Accused No. 3 armed with a stone concealed in cloth bairas attacked Dennis DSouza, Vice President of the D. C. C. and caused a contused wound on the right maxilla near the neck and at the same time, Accused No. 4, who was armed with a small pen knife caused incised wound over the little finger box of Dennis DSouza. Simultaneously, the Ex-Deputy Mayor of the Mangalore City Corporation, who was also engaged in the meeting and on seeing the attack on Dennis DSouza asked the accused not to indulge in such violence and assault, at that time, the accused threatened and all the accused uttered in loud voice we have come here to kill you. If you dont stop this meeting and clear the congress office, we will attack you and break your limbs. When the investigation was pending, the revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the Magistrate on 30. 3. 2000. But the trial Court took cognizance of the case on 7. 4. If you dont stop this meeting and clear the congress office, we will attack you and break your limbs. When the investigation was pending, the revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the Magistrate on 30. 3. 2000. But the trial Court took cognizance of the case on 7. 4. 2000 and thereafter, recorded sworn statement and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order under revision directing issuance of process against the respondents. Therefore, the respondents herein assailing the said order have come up in revision under Section 397 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents and perused the records. ( 4 ) IT is seen that the compliant filed by the petitioner on 4. 3. 2000 against the respondents. Accordingly, a case in Cr. No. 47/2000 came to be filed against the respondents for an offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 342, 324, 506 r/w Section 149 IPC. When the investigation was going on, the respondent herein without waiting for the report, filed a private complaint i. e. , PCR 307/2000 for the aforesaid offences and subsequently, the investigating agency submitted the B final report on 24. 3. 2000. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the complaint filed by the respondent disclose that the filing of the complaint before the jurisdictional police without waiting for the reply of the final report and without hearing the arguments of the complaint, straightway took the cognizance and recorded the sworn statement and issued process, which is violative of Section 210 Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the trial Court without waiting for the reply of final report and without staying further proceedings, took cognizance and recorded the sworn statement and therefore, the impugned order under revision is hit by Section 210 (1) of Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the trial Court without waiting for the reply of final report and without staying further proceedings, took cognizance and recorded the sworn statement and therefore, the impugned order under revision is hit by Section 210 (1) of Cr. P. C. which reads read thus:- when 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. Whereas, in the instant case that the respondent filed complaint before the police on 4. 3. 2000 making sufficient allegations against the revision petitioners. When the case was under investigation, the respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. for the same offences alleged in the complaint filed against the revision petitioners before the police. The respondent has specifically pleaded that he filed a complaint before the police on 4. 3. 200 so, on the basis of his complaint a case in Crime No. 47/2000 came to be registered and apart from mentioning in the private complaint, he has also produced the copy of FIR and the complaint along with other documents without suppressing any fact. But the trial Court without properly looking into the averments of the complaint and also the copies of documents produced, straightway took the cognizance and recorded sworn statement of the complaint and passed the impugned order under revision which is hit by Section 210 (1) of Cr. P. C. In fact, the provisions of Section 210 (1) of Cr. P. C. is a mandatory. Once it is made known to the Magistrate that the police is investigating into the same case, it is incumbent on the part of the Courts to stay the proceedings of the private complaint. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision in case of Birendar Kumar Sharma-Vs-State of Bihar {2000 Crl. P. C. is a mandatory. Once it is made known to the Magistrate that the police is investigating into the same case, it is incumbent on the part of the Courts to stay the proceedings of the private complaint. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision in case of Birendar Kumar Sharma-Vs-State of Bihar {2000 Crl. L. J. 145 (148) (Pat) } and Bhupendra Singh-vs-Mandeep Kaur { 1994 (3) Crimes 70 (Ori)} wherein, it has been held that where both the complainants case and the police case are in respect of the same offence, the Magistrate shall stay the complainants case and call for the report from the police in police case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the trial Court failed to apply its judicious mind and misread the pleadings i. e. , the complaint and the documents. The material on record clearly indicates that the trial Court has utterly failed to stay the further proceedings initiated against the revision petitioners and therefore, the order under revision suffers from the findings recorded by the trial Court. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is allowed. The recording of sworn statement of respondent/complainant without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 210 (1) of Cr. P. C. and the impugned order dated 7. 4. 2000 passed by the trial Court are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the case in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observation made by this Court. --- *** --- .