1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1278/2010 Shri. Arunkumar s/o. Kawaduji Talewar V/s. Sau. Seema w/o P. Ingole and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Rajnish Vyas, advocate for applicant. Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 10th June 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has prayed to quash the criminal complaint no. 4/2010 filed by the non applicants and for setting aside the order dated 23/07/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwapur. It appears that, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had after hearing the complaint decided to issue process against the accused for offence punishable under Section 294, 504, 506-B and 354 of Indian Penal Code. The grievance of the applicant is that the decision to issue process was improper and illegal. Reference is made to the ruling in case of 2 Santokh Singh and anr V/s. Gurpal Singh and others reported in 1996 Crimes 153 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) wherein it appears that, the Punjab & Haryana High Court after considering the relevant provisions arrived at the conclusion that, the respondent in that case ought to exercise the option as to which of the respondent should be permitted to continue as complainant and be mentioned as the complainant. The names of other respondents can be deleted and if the complainants, who chooses to continue with the complaint so like, otherwise would be permitted to be added as witnesses. 3. Learned advocate for the respondents had invited my attention to ruling in case of Abdul Karim and another V/s. Nangoo and another, AIR 1942 Oudb 407 and Shital Chandra Datta V/s. Babu Ram Jodaun and others AIR 1967 All d. 150. However, it appears that though the rulings were considered in the ruling of Santokh Singh apart from other rulings and relevant legal position to arrive at the conclusion that there would be difficulty even in the matter of compounding offence of the accused with every one of the complaint, in the case of joint complaints, that being so, it is always proper for the complainants to file separate complaint. Thus, looking into the sequence of Code of Criminal Procedure, propriety demands that there shall be one complaint in a private complaint considering the ruling. The learned advocate for the respondent has called upon as to which of the respondent 3 will continue with the complaint. Learned advocate for the respondent stated that, Sau. Seema w/o P. Ingole will continue as complainant in the Criminal Complaint No. 4/2010, pending before the learned JMFC, Bhiwapur, while other complainants who were joined with Sau. Seema P. Ingole will file separate complaint. This application is disposed of. Nothing survives in this application. The impugned order which is passed by the learned JMFC, Bhiwapur, is set aside in view of the ruling in Santokh Singh and another V/s. Gurpal Singh and others reported in 1996 Crimes 153 (Punjab & Haryana High Court). Order accordingly. JUDGE sgp