ORDER
N.K. Bhattacharya, J.
1. By this revision, the accused petitioner has challenged order dated 22-6-94 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/260/91 Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981.
2. The fact leading to this case is that upon a complaint of one Amal Kr. Banerjee against the accused petitioner for an offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981, Complaint Case No. C-260/91 has been registered in the Court of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 10 Court Calcutta. In course of the proceeding, the accused petitioner made an allegation by filing an objection that over the self-same incident, a police case is pending and the Ld. Magistrate by his order dated 11-12-91 in exercise of his power Under Section 210(1) of the Cr. P. C. stayed the proceeding, called for a report from the investigating authority and fixed 18-1-92 for submission of the report by the investigating authority in the police case. 18-1 -92 was also fixed for further order. By the order dated 22-6-94, the Ld. Magistrate recorded that the Court received the police report. He directed the police report to be kept with the record and fixed 13-7-94 for plea of the accused. This order is the subject matter of challenge in revision before this Court at the instance of the petitioner Under Section 401/482 of the Cr. P. C.
3. Mr. Ghosal, contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the Ld. Magistrate, in disposing of the application of the accused-petitioner stayed the proceeding in the complaint case and directed submission of report by the investigating in the police case and fixed 18-1 -92 for further order. But after receipt of the report, without disposing of the case as contemplated under Sub-sections (2) and (3) as Section 210, the Ld. Magistrate directed placement of the police report in the record and fixed the case for plea of the accused. No liberty was given to the accused-petitioner to make his submission before the Court and the order is not a reasoned order, rather the order is a non-speaking one. At one point of time, he also challenged the order dated 11-12-91 but subsequently, he submitted that he is not challenging that order. Appearing for the O. P. No. 1, the Ld. Advocate Mr. Jayanta Kr. Biswas appearing with Mr. H. B. Dubey contended that by order dated 11-12-91, the Ld. Magistrate not only called for the report from the investigating authority but also fixed 18-1 -92 for further orders and as such by order dated 22-6-94, by way of further orders he directed placing of the police report and fixed the case for plea of the accused.
4. Heard the submissions of the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties. Considered the materials on record. From the order dated 11-12-91 it appears that upon the application of the accused-petitioner Under Section 210(1) of the Cr. P. C. the Ld. Magistrate stayed the proceeding and called for a report and fixed the date for subsequent order. From the order dated 22-6-94 it appears that the police submitted its report. The trouble started from that stage. Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of the Cr. P. C. enjoins that when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, 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. The Ld. Magistrate has done so by his order dated 11-12-91. Then the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 210 comes into play which inter alia, envisages that when 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. So, Sub-section (2) of Section 210 enjoins a duty upon the Magistrate to consider whether the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence against the accused who is an accused in the complaint case and if it is found that actually he has taken cognizance of the offence as contemplated under Sub-section (1) of Section 210 then he shall try both the cases together. If it is found that the report does not relate to the accused in the complaint case and the Ld. Magistrate has not taken cognizance of any offence then he shall proceed to enquiry or try which was stayed by him in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Unfortunately, in the instant case it is not clear from the order of the Ld. Magistrate actually what was the stage after the police report. If cognizance is taken on the police report as contemplated Under Section 173 of the Cr. P. C. then it is imperative upon the Ld. Magistrate to try both the cases together, namely the complaint case and the police case. In case it is found that the offence is quite different and he has not taken cognizance on the police report then he shall proceed to try or enquire into the case started on complaint. From the order impugned it appears that that part in the order is not eloquent So, I accept the submission of Mr. Ghosal that the order is not a speaking order though it was contended on behalf of the O. Ps. that the Court fixed the case for further orders but that does not empower the Ld. Magistrate to pass an order which is not a reasoned one and which the law required what are the orders need to be passed. In not doing so, the Ld. Magistrate has committed illegality, impropriety and incorrectness” in the order dated 22-6-94.
5. The order is not, accordingly, sustainable in law and it is hereby quashed. However, I direct the Ld. Magistrate to pass a reasoned order. If it is found by the Ld. Magistrate that over the self-same offence he has taken cognizance against the accused upon filing the report Under Section 173, then he shall hear both the police case and the complaint case goether. If it is, found by him that he has not taken cognizance of the offence as alleged in the petition of complaint against the accused, then he shall proceed with the enquiry or trial. With this direction I allow this revisional application.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Court of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta, at the cost of the petitioner by a special messenger as suggested by Mr. Ghosal. Such cost be put in by tomorrow.
7. I further direct that the Ld. Magistrate shall dispose of this matter within a week from the date of receipt of the order.