JUDGMENT 1. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners – original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-24 of 2011 registered with Rakhiyal Police Station dated 15/02/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners. 2. The only contention on behalf of the petitioners – original accused is that with respect to very offence and transaction one private complaint was filed by respondent No.1 – original complainant in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, which was registered as Criminal Case No.628 of 2010 and in the said Criminal Case, learned Metropolitan Magistrate initially passed an order for police inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, after considering the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order on 07/12/2010 directing to issue process against the petitioners – original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the impugned FIR, which can be said to be second FIR/complaint for the very offence, is not permissible/maintainable. 3. Ms.Amee Yajnik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that as such original complainant failed to get any order in the private complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subsequent FIR has been filed by the original complainant with malafide intention and without disclosing the fact that earlier private complaint has been filed by him and, therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned FIR. 4. The present application is opposed by Mr.Nayan Parekh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. He has heavily relied upon Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has submitted that in such a situation, FIR is not required to be quashed and set aside. However, learned Magistrate is required to stay the proceedings/trial pending before him till any report is submitted by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the impugned FIR and, thereafter, he is required to follow the procedure as required under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, learned Magistrate is required to stay the proceedings/trial pending before him till any report is submitted by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the impugned FIR and, thereafter, he is required to follow the procedure as required under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case, after investigation of the FIR, Investigating Officer is of the opinion that the case is made out against the accused persons and in that case he files charge-sheet and submit the report to the learned Magistrate, thereafter learned Magistrate is required to conduct both the cases as both the cases are instituted on police report. In case, it is found by the Investigating Officer that no case is made out against the accused persons and they are not to be charge-sheeted and any report is submitted to the learned Magistrate as required under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same is required to be considered by the learned Magistrate and learned Magistrate is required to consider the same and proceed further with the trial, which is earlier stayed and he is not bound to accept the report submitted by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the impugned FIR, cannot be granted. 5. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has requested to pass an appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that private complaint was filed by respondent No.1 against petitioners herein before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate being Inquiry Case No.11 of 2008 and learned Magistrate passed an order for police inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and directed to issue process against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequent FIR is also filed against the petitioners for the very transaction before Rakhial Police Station, which is impugned FIR in the present application. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Misc. Subsequent FIR is also filed against the petitioners for the very transaction before Rakhial Police Station, which is impugned FIR in the present application. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Misc. Application to quash and set aside the impugned Criminal Case on the ground that for the very transaction, private complaint has been filed by respondent No.1 herein – original complainant and trial before learned Magistrate is going on. Solely on the aforesaid ground, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed and set aside. At this stage, provision of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be considered. Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reads as under: “Sec.210 Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. - (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.” On bare reading of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of 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. 6.1 As per sub-section (2) of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a report is made by the Investigating police officer under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 6.2 As per sub-section (3) of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 may proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6.3 Thus, it appears from the provisions of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that during the course of an inquiry or trial relating to a complaint case, if it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence, which is subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate is bound to stay the such proceedings pending before him and learned Magistrate is required to call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. After investigation, report is submitted by Investigating Police Officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is popularly known as charge-sheet 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 are instituted on a police report. 6.4 In case, after investigation, the Investigating Police Officer submits report that no offence is made out against the accused persons and learned Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, in that case, learned Magistrate is required to proceed further with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the legislature was conscious of such eventuality of complaint pending before learned Magistrate as private complaint as well as investigation by the police. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sankaran Moitra V/s. Sadhna Das & Anr. reported in (2006)4 SCC 584 , the object of Section 210 is threefold: “(i) it is intended to ensure that private complaints do not interfere with the course of justice; (ii) it prevents harassment to the accused twice; and (iii) it obviates anomalies which might arise from taking cognizance of the same offence more than once.” It is further observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that before Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked, the following conditions must be satisfied. “(i) there must be a complaint pending for inquiry or trial; (ii) investigation by the police must be in progress in relation to the same offence; (iii) a report must have been made by the police officer under Section 173; and (iv) the Magistrate must have taken congnizance of an offence against a person who is accused in the complaint case.” 7. Considering the above provision of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the impugned FIR on the aforesaid ground, cannot be granted. Considering the above provision of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the impugned FIR on the aforesaid ground, cannot be granted. It will be open for the petitioners – original accused to point out to the learned Magistrate about the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer in connection with the impugned FIR and learned Magistrate is directed to follow the procedure as provided under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Meaning thereby, learned Magistrate is not bound to accept the report submitted by the Investigating Officer but learned Magistrate is bound to stay the proceedings/trial before him till any report is submitted by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the impugned FIR and after receiving the report, he is required to follow the procedure as required under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With these, the present application is disposed of. Rule is discharged.