IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17017 of 2004 KRISHNA KUMAR AMBASTHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7 16.7.2008 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the state and learned counsel for opposite party no.6 and 10. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.4.2004 passed by Sri A.K.Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint case no. 2004©/2002 corresponding to Tr.no. 1788/02, by which he has stayed further proceeding of the case under section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Cr.P.C.) in view of charge sheet submitted in Agamkuan P.S. case no. 180/2002. It appears that on the basis of written report of petitioner Krishna Kumar Ambastha, the police registered Agamkuan P.S.case no. 180/02 dated 5.8.2002 for an occurrence which had taken place on 4.8.2002 for offence punishable under sections 448, 323, 324 and 341 read with 34 of the Penal Code. It further appears that the petitioner on 24.9.2002 filed Complaint case no. 2004©/02 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against opposite party nos. 2 to 10 for an occurrence which was continuing since 4.8.2002. In the complaint petition he mentioned about the incident which took place on 4.8.2002 and 25.8.2002 to 14.9.2002. Learned counsel submitted that on receipt of complaint petition the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, made over the same under section 192 of the Code to another Magistrate for inquiry 2 and disposal. The transferee court was informed about the police case. He accordingly called for a report from the concerned police station and on receipt of the police report, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 2.4.2004 stayed the further proceeding of the complaint case on the ground that on the same facts, the police is investigating the case. Learned counsel pointed out that the police case and the present complaint case are not entirely on the same facts and therefore, the learned Magistrate was not correct in staying the further proceeding of the case under section 210 of the Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 6 and 10, on the other hand, supported the impugned order but conceded that in the complaint petition the occurrence of different dates have been mentioned. Thus the position is that the police case and the complaint case are not totally on the same facts. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate did not examine that aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order on the basis of the report submitted by the police. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the order impugned dated 2.4.2004 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate shall dispose of the matter by a reasoned order. Al (M.Saran,J)