Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 701 (MP)

Dilip v. Ghanshyam Das Shah

2006-05-12

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard on question of admission. Petitioner has tiled this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the order dated 27.2.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, in Criminal Revision No. 145/05, confirming the order dated 12.7.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Burhanpur, in Criminal Case No. 1115/04, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 210 of the Code was rejected. 2. Petitioner, who is complainant in private complaint Case No. 57/04 pending against the respondent, wherein the JMFC, Burhanpur has called for the police report, moved an application under section 210 of the Code for stay of proceedings of Criminal Case No.1115/04 pending against the petitioner on the complaint filed by Dr. Ghanshyam Das Sahu under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since his complaint under section 406 IPC is pending against Dr. Ghanshyam Das Sahu, the complaint tiled by Dr. Ghanshyam Das Sahu against him be stayed till the report is filed by the police in his complaint case. 4. I have perused the application filed by the complainant, the two complaint cases and the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge in revision, [am of the opinion that this petition deserves to he dismissed. 5. On perusal of the two complaints, it is apparent that the two complaints are in the nature of counter cases. When petitioner filed complaint against Dr. Ghanshyam Das Sahu under section 406 IPC, Dr. Ghanshyam Das Sahu filed another complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Since in both the cases the subject matter is different, the offences arc different and accused arc different, the two proceedings are not covered under the provisions of section 210 of the Code as such application tiled by the petitioner under section 210 of the Code is not maintainable. Hence, in my opinion, both the Courts below have committed no error in rejecting the petitioner's application. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.