IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 998 of 2009()
1. ROOPESH, S/O.SHANMUGHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNDERDAS, S/O.DASAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :04/12/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
======================
Crl.R.P. No. 998 of 2009
======================
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009.
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.946/2006, a
complaint against the revision petitioner and another before the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class, Koyilandy, alleging offences under Section
341 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. On receipt of the summons the revision
petitioner filed a petition as C.M.P.No.6063/2008 seeking an order for
discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The prayer of the revision petitioner
for discharge is with a plea that, on the basis of a report of the police a case
as C.C.No.335/05 was registered and cognizance was taken for offences
under Section 341 and 324 read with 34 IPC for the very same incident and
hence there is legal bar in again taking cognizance. It is further
contended that taking cognizance again for the very same incident is
irregular and for that reason revision petitioner is entitled to be discharged.
By the impugned order, that petition was dismissed. Assailing the legality ,
correctness and propriety of that order the revision petition was filed.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
Crl.R.P. No. 998 of 2007 2
perusing the order impugned it is revealed that as against the very same
incident, a police report was filed alleging offences under Sections 341
and 324 r/w 34 IPC against the revision petitioner as the first accused and
one Baburaj as second accused. It is in protest to that report, the present
complaint was filed against the revision petitioner and one Roopesh as
accused 1 and 2 alleging offences under Section 341 and 326 r/w 34 IPC.
While enacting Criminal Procedure Code, legislature had visualized the
possibility of this sort of situations. Section 210 Cr.P.C was intended for
that purpose. Section 210 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as
follows:-
“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 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.
Crl.R.P. No. 998 of 2007 3
(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.”
3. The facts of this case are identical to the one coming under Section
210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such a situation the procedure
to be adopted is to dispose both cases as if both cases are initiated upon the
police report. In the light of Section 210 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate was
correct in taking cognizance on the complaint. There is no legal bar. There
is no irregularity. But it is legal and regular. Both cases are to be dealt
under Section 210 Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is not entitled to be
discharged. I fail to find any error or illegality in the order impugned.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed as it is devoid of
merits.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
mns
Crl.R.P. No. 998 of 2007 4