JUDGMENT R.K. Rastogi, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 4.5,2005 passed in criminal case No. 4047 of 2005, State v. Azad Alam and Ors. under sections 420, 34 and 506 I.P.C. by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.
2. I have heard Sri Pankaj Tyagi for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri D.K. Srivastava for O.P. No. 2.
3. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that complainant Satya Pal Singh, O.P. No. 2 in this case, had lodged a F.I.R. against the accused applicants on 16.12.2004 under sections 420, 34 and 506 I.P.C. and on the basis of that F.I.R. case crime No. 954 of 2004 was registered against the accused applicants, Smt. Kamlesh Bhardwaj and Azad Alam. A copy of that F.I.R. has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the above application. Thereafter the complainant also filed a complaint case against the accused applicants in respect of same allegations in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat on 23.12.2004. The Magistrate took cognizance of that complaint and after taking evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the accused persons. The accused appeared in that complaint case and moved bail applications which were allowed and they were granted bail. It has been stated that the case is listed for evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.
4. In case crime No. 954 of 2004 police continued with its investigation and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat on 4.2.2005 and on the basis of that charge sheet the Magistrate took cognizance and passed orders for summoning the accused under sections 420, 34 and 506 I.P.C. and also passed an order to this effect that copies be got prepared for being supplied to the accused persons. Aggrieved with that order accused have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted before me that the accused cannot be tried twice for the same offence and so the proceedings of the State case should be quashed when . the proceedings of complaint case in respect of that very incident are pending in the same court. The learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. in reply referred to Section 210 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
210:-Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence:-(I) 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 Cr.P.C. 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.
6. It is, thus clear from perusal of the above section that when -ever two cases are instituted in respect of same offence, one on police report and the other on complaint, then it is duty of the Magistrate on coming to know this fact to stay proceedings of the complaint case and call for report from the police officer conducting investigation and if a report is submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and if on the said report cognizance is taken by the Magistrate against the accused, who was also accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall enquire into and try the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both cases instituted on the police report.
7. In view of the above section, the legal position is that after submission of charge sheet in case crime No. 954 of 2004, complaint case as well as the State case are to be consolidated and are to be tried together by the Magistrate and so there is no question of quashing of the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance on the police report.
8. The application under Section 482 C r.P.C. has, therefore, got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
9. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed. The courts below are however, directed to consolidate the complaint case No. 982 of 2005, Satya Pal Sharma v. Smt. Kamlesh Bhardwaj with criminal case No. 4047 of 2005 registered on the basis of police report in case crime No. 954 of 2004 of police station Ami Nagar Sarai district Baghpat. The Magistrate shall after consolidation of the cases try them as State case in accordance with Section 210(2) Cr.P.C.