ORDER
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for quashing the order dated 10-9-2001 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate rejected the petition field by the petitioner under Section 210 of the Code to call for a report from Sanjay Nagar Police Station vide Report No. 656 of 1999 at Bangalore and also decline to stay the further proceeding in respect of Complaint Case No. C/1-185-2000.
2. It is stated that the Police case being Sanjay Nagar P.S. Case No. 656 of 1999 at Bangalore was registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including Ritesh Sinha alleging therein about cheating of Rupees five lacs for securing admission in the Medical College at Bangalore. A complaint case has also been filed vide Complaint Case No. C/-1-185-2000 in which inquiry was duly held under Section 202 of the Code and cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 464, 468, 470, 469, 506, 120B and 109/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner and his son Ritesh Sinha as regards cheating to the tune of Rupees five lacs for security admission in Medical College at Bangalore.
3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 210 of the Code before the Court below which was rejected by the impugned order dated 10-9-2001.
4. The opposite party No. 2 Complainant appeared through vakalatnama and also filed counter-affidavit in the case claiming therein that Sanjay Nagar Police Case was registered later on and it is not in respect of the same offences as to the complaint case. It is further stated that the petitioner K.K. Sinha (Keshav Kumar Sinha) has never been figured as an accused in Sanjay Nagar Police Station Case No. 656 of 1999. It is further stated that cognizance of the offences was taken first in the complaint case filed at Jamshedpur whereas investigation has not yet been completed in the case registered at Sanjay Nagar Police Station at Bangalore. It is also stated that the petitioner had also filed a quashing petition vide Cr. Misc. No. 4323 of 2000 (R) which was dismissed on 29-9-2000. Again the son of the petitioner Ritesh Sinha also filed an application for quashing the entire criminal proceedings vide Cr. Misc. No. 7751 of 2000 (R) which was also dismissed by order dated 19-4-2001 and so the complaint case is allowed to continue and, therefore, this petition has got no merit and is fit to be dismissed.
5. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below committed error in rejecting the petitioner’s application filed under Section 210 of the Code as the offences in the complaint case and the police case filed at Bangalore are similar and same. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate did not even take steps for calling a report from the Investigating Officer of the Police Case which is still pending under investigation in connection with Sanjay Nagar P.S. Case No. 656 of 1999. The learned Counsel fairly concedes at this stage that he does not press for staying the proceeding in the complaint case but he makes prayer only to call for a report from Sanjay Nagar Police Station at Bangalore. He also relied upon a case of Sishir Kumar Chowdhury alias Bachu Choudhary v. State of Bihar 2000 (2) East Cri C 795.
6. Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No; 2 Complainant argued before me that there is no illegality in the order impugned as the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. It is also submitted that Section 210 of the Code will not be applicable in the instant case as the offences in both the cases are not similar and same as well as the petitioner is not an accused in the case registered at Sanjay Nagar Police Station being Sanjay Nagar P.S. Case No. 656 of 1999. It is further argued that the said first information report was registered at Sanjay Nagar Police Station at Bangalore by the Principal, M.S.R. Hospital against Ritesh Sinha, Amit Chatterji, Anaf and Santosh Kashyap and not against the petitioner. It is also argued that both the petitioner and his son had filed applications for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of this complaint case and took the same plea but both the applications after hearing were dismissed at the admission stage itself and; therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the petition under Section 210 of the Code.
7. From going through the instant case, apparently prima facie case was found for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 469, 470 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code whereas Sanjay Nagar P.S. Case No. 656 of 1999 was registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in which the petitioner is not an accused1. It is also evident that both the petitioner and his son preferred quashing applications by Cr.Misc. No. 4323 of 2000 (R) and 7751 of 2000 (R) and both the quashing applications were dismissed by order dated 29-9-2000 and 19-4-2001 respectively. Thus the complaint case is allowed to continue.
8. It may be noted here that the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in course of argument conceded not to press for staying the proceeding in the complaint case as laid down under Section 210 of the Code. The offences found to be prima facie in the complaint appear to be different from the offence of the Police Case, registered at Sanjay Nagar Police Station at Bangalore. No doubt, the admitted position is that the son of the petitioner Ritesh Sinha had received a sum of Rupees five lacs for getting admission in the medical College at Bangalore and it is also the admitted position that the petitioner is not an accused in the case registered at Sanjay Nagar Police Station. Both Cr. Misc. Nos. 4323 of 2000(R) and 7751 of 2000 (R) for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of the complaint case had already been dismissed as back as on 29-9-2000 and 19-4-2001 amounting to the fact that the complaint case is allowed to proceed in accordance with law. Thus, in my view, the question of staying the proceeding of the instant case does not arise. The facts of the case cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also distinguishable as legally the complaint case is allowed to be continued in accordance with law as well as in the instant case, prima facie case was made out under Sections 406, 420, 464, 469, 470 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It may further be already mentioned here that police case was registered at Sanjay Nagar Police Station by nonelse? but the Principal of M.S.R. Hospital for the offence under Section 420, I.P.C. whereas the instant case was initiated by the victim.
9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances coupled with the materials available, I do not find any merit in this application. Thus this application is dismissed.