Crl. Misc. No.M-2017 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-2017 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.05.2011 Raminder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-6011 of 2010 Sheetal Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-7900 of 2010 Paramjeet Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-15232 of 2010 Amrinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Surinder Kumar and another ....Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-2017 of 2010 2 CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) The above mentioned Crl. Misc. Petitions are being disposed of vide a common order as the FIR and question involved in all the cases is same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No.M-2017 of 2010. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of Complaint No.79 dated 11.12.2008 titled as Surinder Kumar v. Narinder Singh and others under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341, 452, 427, 447, 506, 120-B IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and for quashing of all subsequent proceedings based thereupon including the summoning order dated 25.07.2009 qua the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, did not argue the matter on merits and submitted that he may be allowed to reserve his right to raise the same subsequently, if need be. The matter was addressed only on the legal issue. It was contended that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 02.10.2008, whereas, the FIR No.217 was registered on 05.10.2008 under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Crl. Misc. No.M-2017 of 2010 3 Patiala. The said FIR was investigated. After the investigation, the cancellation report was submitted before the trial Court. During the pendency of the said FIR, Surinder Kumar filed a private Criminal Complaint on 11.12.2008 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. The said complaint is qua the same occurrence which is the subject matter of FIR No.217 dated 05.10.2008. From the perusal of the summoning order, it is clear that the Magistrate was aware of the fact that an FIR already stood registered with respect to the same account. In spite of the same, the Magistrate, without complying with the provisions of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C., proceeded with the complaint. Section 210 of the Cr.P.C 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-2017 of 2010 4 stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.” A perusal of the said Section makes it mandatory for the Magistrate to stay the proceedings of the enquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi reported as (2008) 3 SCC (Criminal) 330, held in paras 13 and 14 as under :- “13. The principle has been statutorily recognised in Section 210 of the Cr.PC which enjoins upon the Magistrate, when it is made to appear before him either during the inquiry or the trial of a complaint, that a complaint before the police is pending investigation in the same matter, he is to stop the proceeding in the complaint case and is to call for a report from the police. After the report is received from the police, he is to take up the matter together and if cognizance has been taken on the police report, he is to try the complaint case along with the GR case as if both the cases are instituted upon police report. The aim of the provision is to safeguard the interest of the accused from unnecessary harassment. 14. The provisions of Section 210 CrPC are mandatory in nature. It may be true that non- compliance of the provisions of Section 210 CrPC, is not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution because of the provision of Section 465 CrPC, unless error, omission or irregularity has also caused the failure of justice and in determining the fact whether there is a failure of justice the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. But even applying the very same principles it is seen that in fact the appellant was in fact prejudiced because of the non- production of Crl. Misc. No.M-2017 of 2010 5 the records from the police.” Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant does not dispute the above legal position and nor the fact that the provisions of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C were not complied with. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.07.2009, summoning the petitioners is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Magistrate to enable him to proceed in accordance with law after complying with the provisions of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. The parties shall now appear before the Magistrate through their counsel on 30.05.2011. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 06.05.2011 JUDGE gurpreet