Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 784 (KER)

Balu Jayan v. State of Kerala

2019-09-27

MARY JOSEPH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Petitioner who has preferred this Original Petition is none other than the accused in S.T. No.20/2017, a prosecution pending on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The case originally was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta and got transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram pursuant to passing of an order by this Court on 05.04.2017 in Tr.P(Crl.) No.8/2017 and at present is pending as S.T. No.20/2017 before the latter court. The true copy is made available for perusal along with the petition on hand, as Ext.P1. 2. The allegation in Ext.P1 was that a cheque bearing No.544833 dated 13.09.2010 for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-issued by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent herein to discharge monetary liability to that extent was bounced for the reason 'payment stopped by drawer' when presented before the bank for encashment. Lawyer notice apprising the factum of dishonour of the cheque and demanding the money due was responded to by the petitioner with a total denial of issuance of cheque and monetary liability. Copy of the cheque in dispute is produced along with the petition on hand as Ext.P2. 3. In the meantime a private complaint was preferred by the petitioner as Crl.M.P. No.5534/2010 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram against respondents 2 to 4 alleging that cheques belonging to him were misappropriated by the petitioner and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The true copy of the private complaint is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Ext.P3. The complaint was forwarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram to Museum Police Station under sub-section (3) of Section 153 Cr.P.C. Crime No.935/2010 was registered by the Museum Police against respondents 2 to 4 for offences referred to above. The true copy of the FIR is appended to the petition on hand as Ext.P4. Due to the lagging of investigation, the petitioner preferred Crl.M.P. No.3180/2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking to expedite the investigation. In the meantime, a report referring the case as 'undetected' was filed by the police before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The true copy of the FIR is appended to the petition on hand as Ext.P4. Due to the lagging of investigation, the petitioner preferred Crl.M.P. No.3180/2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking to expedite the investigation. In the meantime, a report referring the case as 'undetected' was filed by the police before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In the report, the police has stated that the disputed cheque was produced by the complainant in the prosecution under Section 142 N.I. Act and it being in the custody of the court, investigation could not be conducted by them properly. The Civil nature of the case was also projected as a factor restraining them to pursue with the investigation. True copy of the refer report is produced along with the petition on hand as Ext.P5. 4. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram did not accept the refer report and by order dated 06.01.2015 directed the SHO of Museum Police Station to investigate Crime No.935/2010 and to file a final report within 60 days, copy of which order is produced in the Original Petition on hand as Ext.P6. The SHO, Museum Police Station filed a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram requesting to call for the cheque produced in S.T. No.210/2011 for getting it examined by the Forensic Scientific Laboratory and to obtain opinion on its authorship, copy of which report is also available as Ext.P8. 5. The SHO Museum Police Station has also filed a report stating that report from the Forensic Scientific Laboratory is not received by them. Time of one month was also sought in the report to file the Final Report in Crime No.935/2010. But, the final report is not filed yet. Trial was commenced in the meantime in S.T. No.210/2011. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel that the final report proposed to be filed by SHO, Museum Police Station in Crime No.935/2010 would be a good defence for him in S.T. No.210/2011. Since much delay was occurred in filing the final report in Crime No.935/2010, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.1399/15 in ST No.210/2011 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta under Section 210 Cr.P.C seeking to stay the proceedings in ST No.210/2011 till the final report is filed in Crime No.935/2010. Since much delay was occurred in filing the final report in Crime No.935/2010, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.1399/15 in ST No.210/2011 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta under Section 210 Cr.P.C seeking to stay the proceedings in ST No.210/2011 till the final report is filed in Crime No.935/2010. The court observed while considering the application that the offences involved in ST No.210/2011 and those in Crime No.935/2010 are different and therefore, Section 210 Cr.P.C has no application. Accordingly, Crl.M.P. No.1399/15 was dismissed. Copy of the said order is produced as Ext.P9. Ext.P9 order was taken up in challenge in O.P. (Crl) No.183/2016. This Court after setting aside the order directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram to which the case was directed to be transferred by the order passed in Tr.P(Crl) No.8/2017 to consider the prayer of the petitioner to stay the proceedings seized by it and dispose of the petition afresh. Copy of the judgment is appended to as Ext.P11. 7. In accordance with the judgment in Tr.P(Crl) No.8/2017, S.T. No.210/2011 was transferred from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta to Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram and renumbered as S.T. No.20/2017. A Refer Report was once again filed in Crime No.935/2010 stating that the disputed cheque was in the custody of the Court and was not available for pursuing with the investigation. This was the ground in the first refer report also. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the refer report by order dated 02.02.2018 and directed the police to complete the investigation granting them liberty to get the original of the cheque for examination. Copy of the said order is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Ext.P12. As directed in Ext.P11 judgment, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.1103/2018 in S.T No.20/17 under Section 210 Cr.P.C seeking to stay the proceedings therein till a final report is filed in Crime No.935/10. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram dismissed the petition again by order dated 04.09.2019 for the reason that offences involved in the two cases being different, Section 210 Cr.P.C has no application. Copy of the order is produced as Ext.P13. 8. According to Sri.V.Philip Mathews the order under challenge is perfectly illegal. According to him, the subject matter in Crime No.935/2010 and S.T. No.20/2017 are one and the same. Copy of the order is produced as Ext.P13. 8. According to Sri.V.Philip Mathews the order under challenge is perfectly illegal. According to him, the subject matter in Crime No.935/2010 and S.T. No.20/2017 are one and the same. According to him, though the offences involved in both cases are different, the cases have the characteristics of a case and a counter case. According to him, since the subject matter in both cases being the same, there is every reason for staying the proceedings in S.T. No.20/2017 under Section 210 Cr.P.C till the final report is filed in Crime No.935/2010. According to him, if stay is declined, there is every likelihood for the petitioner to be prejudiced. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the petition deserves to be disposed of without dragging the respondents before this Court. Accordingly issuance of notice was dispensed with. The question relevant for consideration is whether in the factual scenario of the case as discussed above, whether the trial court is justified in declining to invoke the power to stay the proceedings pending on its file under Section 210 Cr.P.C. 10. An understanding of the provision being very important in the context, is extracted here 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.” 11. It is contemplated under the provision that the Magistrate in seizin of a private complaint shall stay the proceedings of the pending case if an information is received during enquiry or trial that the police is also investigating the same case so as to facilitate consideration of both cases together. 12. Sub-section (2) of Section 210 is very relevant and will help to understand the situation more clear. It speaks about the consequence of filing of a final report in the case investigated by the police and taking cognizance by the Magistrate against the same accused in the complaint case in seizin of it. The provision directs the Magistrate in such a scenario to inquire into or try the complaint case and the case arising out of police report as if both cases are instituted on a police report. Therefore, the accused in the complaint case and the case instituted on a police report must be the same for invocation of power under Section 210 Cr.P.C. Therefore, invocation of power under Section 210 Cr.P.C is not contemplated in a context wherein the cases referred to have the characteristics of a case and a counter case as contended by the learned counsel. 13. The second aspect to facilitate invocation of the provision is that the investigation of the police case in progress of which the Magistrate is informed of is relating to the offence which is the subject matter of the complaint case in seizin of it, and is pending inquiry or trial therein. 14. For grant of stay under Section 210 Cr.P.C the Magistrate in seizin of a private complaint, inquiry or trial of which is pending, must be convinced that the ongoing investigation by the Police is in relation to an offence which was the subject matter of inquiry or trial held by it. Or in otherwords, both the complaint case and Police investigated case must be with reference to the same offence and relating to one and the same person as the accused. Or in otherwords, both the complaint case and Police investigated case must be with reference to the same offence and relating to one and the same person as the accused. When the complainant and accused are different, though the occurrence is the same both in the Police case and the complaint case and the cases are not related to the same offence, Section 210 Cr.P.C would not apply. The purpose behind staying the inquiry or trial is to avoid conduct of trial against the accused twice for the same offence. The stay will be operative only till the final report is filed in the Police case. On filing the Police charge, both cases will be clubbed together and the accused will be tried on the basis of the Police charge as if both cases were instituted on a Police Report. 15. Therefore, the case being investigated by the police and the one pending inquiry or trial before the Magistrate must have nexus in the matter of offences and the person against whom those are alleged. For inquiry into or trying together of the two cases as contemplated under Section 210 Cr.P.C not only that the offences in the two cases are alike but also that the accused are one and the same. 16. When the facts of the case on hand is viewed in the legal backdrop as discussed above, it is found that, the offence alleged in the private complaint in seizin of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in S.T. No.20/2017 is one coming under Section 138 N.I. Act whereas those allegedly involved in Crime No.935/2010 under investigation by police are under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 coming within the purview of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, the accused in the prosecution pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the complainant in the case being investigated by the police. Therefore, the accused being different in the two cases, Section 210 Cr.P.C is not liable to be invoked in the context and the order of stay required to be passed is only to be discarded. 17. Though reasoning of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order is incorrect, the dismissal of the application is in the right perspective. Therefore, Interference is totally uncalled for. In the result, O.P.(Crl) is dismissed.