Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 840 (BOM)

Ashok Bhimrao Deshkar v. Nalinitai Guylabrao Isal

2012-04-20

M.L.TAHALIYANI

body2012
Judgment Criminal Application No.422/2011 was not on today's Board. The same was called from the Office and is being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Admitted. Heard finally by consent of the counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant is the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court, No.5 Amravati in Summary Criminal Case Nos. 6083/2006; 6644/2006; 6645/2006 and 6646 /2006. All the complaints were filed by the respondent no.1 Nalinitai Gulabrao Isal alleging, inter alia, that the applicant has committed offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (henceforth "the said Act" in short). 4. It appears that after filing of the complaints before the Magistrate for the alleged offence punishable u/s 138 of the said Act, the respondent no.1 Nalinitai had filed police complaint at Rajapeth Police Station, Amravati against the applicant for the offences punishable u/ss. 406, 420 r/ws. 34 of the IPC. The wife of the applicant is also made accused in the said report, during the course of investigation. In the FIR registered at the instance of respondent no.1, the applicant moved the learned trial Court u/s 210(1) of Cr.P.C. for calling records of the police in respect of complaints filed by the respondent no.1. The Magistrate rejected the prayer on the ground that the offence punishable u/s 138 of the said Act is an offence under the Special Act and it has nothing to do with the report filed by the respondent no.1 at the Police Station. The Magistrate was also of the view that it would not be possible to club the complaint cases with the police case u/s. 210(2) of Cr.P.C. He, therefore, rejected the Applications filed in all the four complaint cases. The applicant had moved the Sessions Court against the said order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the Revision Applications filed by the applicant. The applicant has, therefore, moved this Court u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. During the course of hearing, it has transpired that a report u/s. 173 of Cr.P.C. has already been filed by the police against the applicant and his wife. The question, therefore, is whether the said police report and the pending complaint cases could be clubbed together for joint trial. The question, therefore, is whether the said police report and the pending complaint cases could be clubbed together for joint trial. Since the applicant had moved the trial Court before filing of the report by the police and since now the report has been filed, the provisions of Section 210(1) Cr.P.C. will have no application. At this stage, the provisions of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. will be applicable. Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. runs as under : "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." 5. It is now for the Magistrate to decide whether the investigation completed by the police and the charge-sheet filed after completion of investigation are in relation to the offences which are the subject-matter of Criminal Complaint Nos. 6083, 6644, 6645 and 6646 all of 2006. As such, the applicant will have to move the learned trial Court if he is desirous of having a joint trial of all the complaint cases and the police case. 6083, 6644, 6645 and 6646 all of 2006. As such, the applicant will have to move the learned trial Court if he is desirous of having a joint trial of all the complaint cases and the police case. Hence I pass the following order : ORDER 1) The present Applications do not survive as the report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. has already been filed by the Investigating Officer. 2) The provisions of section 210(2) will now be attracted. The applicant is at liberty to move the learned trial Court for passing appropriate orders. 3) The learned trial Court after hearing the concerned parties, shall decide, whether the police report filed in his Court vide Regular Criminal Case No.1141/2010 is in relation to the offences which are the subject-matter of the trial in the above-referred four cases. All the Applications stand disposed of accordingly.