Criminal Misc. No. M-19229 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-19229 of 2010 Date of decision : 08.07.2010 Mahender Singh ....Petitioner V/s Sombir ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has assailed the summoning order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi on the ground that the matter was earlier investigated by the police and the Magistrate should have called the police report before directing summoning of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that impugned order dated 12.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) suffers from patent error as before summoning the petitioner under Sections 323/342/506/34 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the Magistrate failed to call for police report as required under Section 210 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, there was no FIR registered by the police earlier on the same allegations as contained in the complaint, Annexure P-2. I am thus not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate should have called for police report and only then proceeded Criminal Misc. No. M-19229 of 2010 2 to decide whether the accused needed to be summoned. In this context Section 210(1) is relevant. The same reads thus:- “Section 210(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, than 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. ” It is thus clear that in a complaint case, in case it appears to the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence pertaining to same subject matter, he would stay the proceedings and call for a report from the investigating officer. However, in the instant case, admittedly no FIR was ever registered regarding the same subject matter as contained in complaint, Annexure P-2. I am thus of the considered view that provisions of Sub Section 1 of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. are not attracted to the instant case. The plea of the petitioner is thus devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. July 08, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE