^toC' ./"• ?/ -1K ••T— HIOH COURTOF CHHATTISQARHAT BiLASPUR Cr.M.P.N0.540of2009 Petjtioners 1. N.K.Taunk, S/o Purusottam Taunk, aged about 58 years, R/o 67/2 Nchru Nagar (East)Bhilai, Distt.Durg(C.G.) 2. R^esh Slngh, S''o Prakash Singh, aged about 34 years, R<'o Umarpotj Lokiiagar, Utai,Bhi!a!,Distt.Durg(C.G.) 3. Vipin Bansal, S/o Jasbir Bansal, aged abput 42 yeare, R/o LJ.G. 40 Vaishaii Nagar, Bhiiai, Distt.Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Manik Mehta, S/o Late P.D.Mehta, aged about 36 yearS.Rto 48/08, Nehru Nagar ; (East) Bhiiai, Distt.Durg (C.G^ 2. State of Ghhattlsgarh, Threugh : Resnondents D.M.Durg (Petition undersection 482 of th®Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bte Nr.T^.Sharma, J.) Present: Mr. Arvlnd KumarDubeylcounsslforBie petltioners. h/!rs.BeenuSharma,Panei!av/yerforrespondenSNo.2/SSate. ORALOTOER (Passed on 11 Decsmber, 20Q9) 1. This isa petition under Sectjon 482 oftheCode ofChminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "fte Code') for quashmsntof theorderdated 3.7.2009 passedbythe 11th Additiona) Sessions Judge (F.T.C^, Duig, in Gnmlna! RevisiQn No,154(2008 settingaside the order dated 4.10.2008 passedbythe i.1udicial IViagistrate First Ctass, Durg, in unregistored crimlna! complaint whereby learned 11 Additionai Ssssions Judge has direcSed the Judteial Magtetrate First Class for taking cognizance forthe offence punishabie under Sections 457 and 380 of.-'the indian Penai Code on the basisof compiaint filed by respondent l^o^, herein. •t^. . . • 2. iQuashment fe prayed on the ground that on the basis of complaint fited by respondent No.1, fh®Court shall exaniiine the cemplaint in accordance with 1 Chapter XV of Uie Cede. During pendency of inquiry, the police has ateo -iregistereci tha offence and'filed the ctiarge sheetfor the oflwice gtinishabte under Sectipn 448/34 af the Inclian Penal ©Na,tter8fbre,;aft®rfs! !:^ct!arg& sheet, tearned JMdicial Magistrate Rrst Class has TighjUy jng ofithe —2-- 11 • complaint along wjth charge sheet, butthe revisional Court has directed for separate inquiry and for taking cognizance, for which the revisional Court was not competent. 3. ! have heard learne-c! counse! for the parties and perused the order impugned. 4. From perusa! of the order impugned, it revea's that crinninal comp!aint for the offence punishable under Sectjpns 379, 380, 427, 454, 457 and 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code was fited by respondent No.1 which was pending for inquiry before the Judicial Magistrate Eirst Class, Durg. During the course of inquiry, the po!ice has filed the charge sheet for th®offence punishabte under Sections 448/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code againstthe petitioners. After filing of the charge sheet, iearned Judicial Magistrate First Ctass has merged both the cases. Order of merger wa.s challenged by respondent No.1 before the revisional Court and fhe revisional Court has passed the order impugned. 5. !t is c.1ear from the order impugned that the police has filed the charge sheet against the petitioners oniy relating to the offence punishabte under Section 448/34 of the Indian Penai Cocte and notfor other offences alteged in the comptaint. In this circumstance, the only option was teft to the concerned Court in accordance wlth sub-section (3) ofSection 210 ofthe Ccxlethat he shall proceed with the inquiry on the hasis of compiaint made by respondent No.1, Provisions of Section 210 of the Code reads thus:- "210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case arid po!ice investigation inrespectofthesam60ffence.-{1)whenina ' case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a co.-nplaint case), It is ma^e to appear to the Magistrate.dyring the courseofthe inquiry or triat held by him, that an investigation/by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject- matter of the inqulry- or trial hslc! by him, the Magistrate shail stay the proceedings of such inquiry 6r triai and call for a report on the matter from the po!ice ofRcer conducting the investigation. (2) !f a report is made by the investigating polics officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of unyoffsnGe tetaken by' the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the cempiaint , case, the M^gistrate shai! inquire into ortry together the cornplsint i case and^thp case arising out of the potice report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) lf the poiice reporfcloes not re!ate to any aGGused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance or any 1 offenceon the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry pr triai, which was staysd by him, in accordancewith the provisions of this Code." 6. Admittedly, at this stage the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has not : e compteted Inquiry on theibasis of complaint, therefore, any direction for taking ~ 3— cogniza.nce of the offanee wou!d be pre-mature and even otherwlse the revisional Court is not competentto passsuch direction. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition isallowed.Direction reiating to jnquiry into the compiaint made by respondent No.1 passed by the revisiona! Court is afflrmed and direction relating. to order taking cognizance of the offence punishabte underSections 457 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby quashed. The Judicia! Magistrafe Flrst Class, Durg shal! proceed with the inquiry into the complaint made by respond^nt No.1 in accortlance with Chapter XV of the Code. B;- -"..^' Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge ,f7''\