IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 2653 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 30.1.2009 Ram Kumar Versus State of Haryana Present:- Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral) Petitioner seeks a direction to stay criminal proceedings in FIR No. 97 dated 25.03.2005, under Sections 332, 353, 186 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Pehowa, as the occurrence in said State case is same as the criminal complaint in Ram Kumar Vs. Surjit Singh and others. The proceedings in the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner stand stayed in criminal revision Surjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others in Crl. Rev. No. 266 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations of the petitioner against Surjit Singh in private complaint are of the same event which is subject matter of the State case registered against the petitioner in FIR mentioned hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C indicates that it is clear that when a case i.e private complaint instituted otherwise than on police report, it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during 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 subject matter of the inquiry or trial held Crl. Rev. No. 2653 of 2008 -2- 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. In the present case, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner at the instance of Surjit Singh-complainant. FIR was registerd on 25.3.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that challan has been presented in the said case, after investigation. So far as private complaint of petitioner against Surjit Singh is concerned it is in the nature of cross- version taken to the Court by filing the private complaint. Section 210 Cr.P.C requires a Magistrate to stay the proceedings before him in any inquiry or trial in complaint in case investigation of police is under progress pertaining to the same subject matter, which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial in private complaint before him. But the circumstances of the present case are absolutely contradictory. Petitioner seeks stay of the criminal proceedings solely on the ground that he has got a cross-version case that too under different Sections of IPC and Section of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. Petitioner had moved an application under Section 210 Cr.P.C being an accused in FIR No. 97 for stay of the criminal proceedings against him solely on the ground that he has filed a private complaint which is in the shape of cross-version. The said application before the Additional Sessions Judge, was not even maintainable. The provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C are not applicable in the present case. As such, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, Annexure P-2. In the present case, further Crl. Rev. No. 2653 of 2008 -3- proceedings in the private complaint filed by the petitioner stands already stayed by the High Court, therefore, staying of the State case against the petitioner will not be in the interest of justice as it will tantamount to delaying the proceeding. Dismissal of this petition will not be in any manner prejudice the right of the petitioner to take up evidence available to him. This order will not be treated as having an adverse affect on the petitioner while taking up evidence available to him. January 30, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge