Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 972 (HP)

Satish Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-09

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. A perusal of record shows that an incident dated 06.06.2023 was reported to the police and the police registered an F.I.R. No. 90 of 2023, dated 07.06.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. The police filed a charge-sheet for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 , 341, 355, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC before the Gram Panchayat Seu, Block Development Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. after completion of the investigation. 2. Subsequently, the victim filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,H.P.,regarding the same incident, who assigned it to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., for trial. It was asserted in para 5 to 7 of the complaint that an F.I.R. No. 90 of 2023 dated 07.06.2023, was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., but the informant was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police and the submission of the charge-sheet before the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. Learned Magistrate took cognisance after recording the statements of four witnesses and thereafter ordered the issuance of process vide order dated 21.08.2024. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Two submissions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner, (i) that the informant had earlier filed an application under Section 410 of Cr.P.C.in which identical pleas were taken as were taken in the complaint. This application was unconditionally withdrawn vide order dated 16.05.2024. Since the application was withdrawn unconditionally, therefore, the complaint could not have been filed. (ii) The continuation of the proceedings before two Courts, namely learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. and the Gram Panchayat Seu, Block Development Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.,is a violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. 4. A similar situation arose before this Court in Wattan Singh vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. 2005 (1) ShimLC 82 , wherein a complaint was made before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P. and to the police. 4. A similar situation arose before this Court in Wattan Singh vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. 2005 (1) ShimLC 82 , wherein a complaint was made before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P. and to the police. The police submitted a charge sheet before the concerned Gram Panchayat for its disposal as per law.It was held by this Court that as per Section 210 of Cr.PC., the learned Magistrate has to call for a report from the police officer in the matter and thereafter try the complaint and police challan together as if it were instituted on a police report. It was observed:- “5. There cannot be any dispute about the correctness of the conclusion arrived by the trial Magistrate that, in view of the police charge-sheet and the complaint arising out of the same occurrence, and based on the similar allegations, these should be dealt with under the provisions of Section 210 of the Code. 6. Section 210 of the Code reads 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." 7. It is clear on a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that when a complaint is filed and it appears to the Magistrate during the inquiry or trial of such complaint that the police has also investigated the same offence, the Magistrate has to stay the complaint case and call for a report from the police officer in the matter. In case there is a report by the police, both the complaint and the case arising out of the police report are required to be tried together. Once the Magistrate decides to try the complaint and the police case together, he has to try them as a case instituted on a police report. 8. Therefore, the trial Magistrate, having rightly decided to proceed in the matter as provided under Section 210 of the Code, was to inquire into and try the complaint case and the case as reported by the police as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.” 5. This judgment takes care of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that Section 210 of CrPC does not apply to a case where the matter is pending before the Court as well as the Gram Panchayat. 6. Thus, in view of this judgment, which was binding upon learned Trial Court, the learned Magistrate was bound to call report from the police and thereafter proceed with the matter as per law, however, learned Magistrate erred in not calling the report from the police even though attention of the learned Magistrate was drawn towards the fact that the matter was already reported to the police and the police had investigated it. Thus, the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. cannot be sustained and is ordered to be quashed. 7. Thus, the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. cannot be sustained and is ordered to be quashed. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the matter is ordered to be remitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.2 Ghumarwin with a direction to call for the report of the police as per Section 210 of CrPC and thereafter proceed with the matter as per law. 8. Since the matter is being remitted to the learned Trial Court; therefore, the pleas taken before this Court are not being adjudicated to avoid any prejudice to the complainant. It is expressly made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the allegations made in the complaint filed before the learned Trial Court, and the learned Trial Court is free to decide the matter as deemed proper by it. 9. Complainant through her counsel is directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. on 28 th May, 2025 10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.