Judgment :- (1) Heard K. Pallavi, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner- accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent. (2) This Court on 30.1,2009 granted interim stay for a limited period which is being extended from time to time. A report had been called for from the learned J.F.C.M., Palamaner and the report had been received. (3) However, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had pointed out to Section 210(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that the learned J.F.C.M. had totally erred in expressing opinion that the learned Magistrate is going to commit the case on police report leaving apart the private complaint, (4) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that the learned Magistrate is expected to follow the procedure as specified under Section 210(2) of the Code. (5) Heard the Counsel. Perused the report submitted in this regard by the learned J.F.C.M. (6) The petitioner is accused in PRC No.24/07 on the file of J.F.C.M., Kuppam. The petitioner was arrayed as accused for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also the case of the petitioner that after PRC No.24/2007, the de facto complainant filed a private complaint for the same incident and offence against 7 accused wherein the petitioner was shown as A2. The same was registered as crime No.39/2006 of P.S. Rallabudguru of Chittoor District. In the private complaint they had shown 6 persons as accused in CFR No.1268/2007. It is also the case of the petitioner that the learned J.F.C.M., Kuppam made an order on 24.1.2008 stating that both the cases would be taken up together since the crime relating to both the cases is one since the same and the accused being common in both the cases. The petitioner is shown as A2 in the private complaint. Further it is stated that on 31.10.2007 the learned J.F.C.M. white finding that both the cases had been registered for the same offence made a docket order wherein it was observed that both the matters would be taken up together. The petitioner is shown as A2 in the private complaint. Further it is stated that on 31.10.2007 the learned J.F.C.M. white finding that both the cases had been registered for the same offence made a docket order wherein it was observed that both the matters would be taken up together. It is also the case of the petitioner that if the matters are tried separately, there is every possibility of expression of difference of opinion by different Courts, It is also the case of the petitioner that in contravention of the docket order made on 31.10.2007, now the petitioner was directed to get sureties to commit PRC No.24/2007 while expressing an opinion in open Court that the private complaint would be committed to the Court of Session for trial subsequently. Several other further facts also had been narrated. (7) Section 210 of the Code dealing with procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence reads as hereunder: "(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. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (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." (8) Strong reliance was placed on sub-section (2) of Section 210 of the Code. Reliance also was placed on Chinnu Naicken v. Ragasami, 1983 Crl.LJ 494 (Mad.); and State v. Har Narain, 1976 Crl.LJ 562 (Del.). (9) The report submitted to this Court also would reflect the same facts. It is needless to say that the learned Magistrate is expected to follow the procedure as contemplated by Section 210(2) of the Code. (10) Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.