Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. In this application, petitioners have challenged orders dated 19.10.2006 and 20.10.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Complaint Case No. C2254 of 2006. 3. By order dated 19.10.2006 the court below has not passed any order on the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners bringing to the notice of the court that a police case has been registered in respect of the same offence and therefore the proceeding in the complaint case should be stayed. Learned court below has found that the judgment of this Court relied upon on behalf of the accused persons was not complete. The court below has also found that no document was filed on behalf of the accused persons in support of their claim that police case in respect of the same offence is pending investigation. Therefore, the court below did not pass any order on the petition filed on behalf of the accused persons for stay of the proceeding in the complaint case. Subsequently, on the next day i.e. on 20.10.2006 learned court below perused the complaint petition and the evidence on record and took cognizance against the accused persons of the offences under sections 302, 307, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to the same occurrence dated 6.10.2006 two F.I. Rs. were registered pertaining to Forbesganj RS. Case No. 368 of 2006 and Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 369 of 2006 on 7.10.2006 and they were pending investigation and therefore, learned Magistrate ought to have stayed the proceedings in the complaint case which was filed by the widow of the deceased on 11.10.2006 after institution of the police cases. were registered pertaining to Forbesganj RS. Case No. 368 of 2006 and Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 369 of 2006 on 7.10.2006 and they were pending investigation and therefore, learned Magistrate ought to have stayed the proceedings in the complaint case which was filed by the widow of the deceased on 11.10.2006 after institution of the police cases. In this connection, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to sub-section (1) of section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows : "210.(1) 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 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." 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and referred to sub-section (3) of section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows : "(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. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the version in three cases are different, names of the accused persons are also different and therefore, provisions of sub-section (1) of section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as quoted above. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the provisions of subsection (1) of section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure becomes operative when it is brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate during enquiry or trial that some police investigation is pending in relation to the same offence. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the provisions of subsection (1) of section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure becomes operative when it is brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate during enquiry or trial that some police investigation is pending in relation to the same offence. If learned Magistrate is satisfied on the basis of the records that investigation is with regard to the same offence, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to stay the proceeding and call for a report from the police with regard to the investigation. To me it appears that sub-section (3) of section 210 Cr.P.C. comes into play only when such report is called for by the Magistrate as per provisions of sub-section (1) of section 210 Cr.P.C. and sub-section (3) of section 210 Cr.P.C. becomes operative when the Magistrate peruses the police report so called for and gives his finding that the police report does not relate to any accused named in the complaint or the Magistrate does not take cognizance of offence on the police report. In that case the Magistrate shall proceed with the enquiry or the trial as the case may be. Therefore, in my view, sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 210 Cr.P.C. become operative at different stages. 8. In the present case, it is apparent from the order dated 19.10.2006 that the petition filed on behalf of the accused persons did not bring to the notice of the learned Magistrate the details of those cases pending in the matter and no documents were produced on behalf of the accused persons to satisfy the court prima facie that some investigation with regard to the same offence is pending and thus no order was passed on the said petition by learned Magistrate and on the next day on perusal of the complaint and evidence collected during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken. Since the petition filed on behalf of the accused persons (present petitioners) was lacking in material particulars and was not accompanied with sufficient documents, the Magistrate could not apply his mind with regard to any investigation pending in connection with the same offence and thus, the learned Magistrate rightly did not pass any order on the said petition. 9. Since the petition filed on behalf of the accused persons (present petitioners) was lacking in material particulars and was not accompanied with sufficient documents, the Magistrate could not apply his mind with regard to any investigation pending in connection with the same offence and thus, the learned Magistrate rightly did not pass any order on the said petition. 9. In the circumstances, without setting aside orders dated 19.10.2006 and 20.10.2006, petitioners are given liberty to file a petition before the learned court below as per provisions of section 210(1) Cr.P.C. bringing on record ail the material particulars and documentary proofs with regard to the pendency of investigation by the police with regard to same offence. If such a petition is filed on behalf of the accused petitioners, learned Magistrate will examine the materials produced and upon being satisfied that any investigation is pending with regard to the same offence, he shall exercise his powers under Section 210 Cr.P.C. and call for a report from the police and stay further proceedings till the report is received. If learned Magistrate is satisfied with regard to the pendency of the investigation for the same offence, he shall ensure that the report is submitted by the police at an early date and shall thereafter proceed with the matter expeditiously. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of.