IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37368 of 2006 1. BHOLA NATH SINGH, SON OF SRI VRIJ BIHARI SINGH. 2. SMT. KIRAN SINGH, WIFE OF SRI BHOLA NATH SINGH. BOTH RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.105, SHIVA ENCLAVE VED NAGAR, RUKUNPURA, PATNA-14. 3. KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE CHANDRIKA PRASAD SINGH. 4. SMT. BIBHA SINGH, WIFE OF SRI KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH. BOTH RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.401, SHIVA ENCLAVE VED NAGAR, RUKUNPURA, PATNA-14. 5. KAILASH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SRI YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH. 6. SMT. MANJU SINGH, WIFE OF SRI KAILASH PRASAD SINGH. BOTH RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.402, SHIVA ENCLAVE, VED NAGAR, RUKUNPURA, PATNA-14. 7. SRI KRISHNA, SON OF SRI RAMANAND PRASAD. 8. SMT. MEENASHREE, WIFE OF SRI KRISHNA. BOTH RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.405, SHIVA ENCLAVE, VED NAGAR, RUKUNPURA, PATNA-14. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF SHIVA ENCLAVE APARTMENT, VED NAGAR, RUKUNPURA, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. DANAPUR, PATNA-800014. ………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAM UDAR SINGH, SON OF SRI TRIPIT NARAYAN SINGH, MOHALLA-21, SHIVA COMPLEX, VED NAGAR, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. DANAPUR, PATNA-800014. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh No.I, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Vivekanand Singh, Amrendra Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates. ------------ O R D E R The eight petitioners who have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.135(C) of 2004 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 17.6.2006 passed therein by Sri Ranjit Kumar Singh, - 2 - Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danapur, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506, 385, 452 and 120-B I.P.C. Without adverting to the complainant’s case in detail suffice it to say that the complainant, one Ram Udar Singh, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint on 25.2.2004 inter alia alleging commission of offences by the petitioners under Sections 120-B, 208, 211, 352, 323, 385, 389, 403, 420, 448, 451, 452, 506 and 507 I.P.C. on amongst others the following dates 8.5.1999, 6.11.1999, 5.2.2001, 18.11.2001 and 31.12.2003. It appears that the self same complainant had earlier preferred Danapur P.S. Case No.642 of 2003, as is admitted in paragraph 7 of the Complaint Petition, in respect of the same occurrence. It would also appear from the order sheet of the court, which is annexed with the application, that on 15.9.2004, the then Magistrate in seisin of the case noticing that the complainant had already filed Danapur P.S. Case No.642 of 2003 called for a report from the police under Section 210 Cr.P.C. and on receipt of the report directions were issued to amalgamate the records of the complaint case with the records of the police case after obtaining permission of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur. The case, however, by an order dated 30.1.2006 appears to have been transferred to the court of Sri Ranjit Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danapur, who apparently without perusing the record, took cognizance by the impugned order, notwithstanding the fact that in the - 3 - police case charge sheet had already been submitted and cognizance had been taken as far back as on 2.3.2004 and that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had already ordered for amalgamating the two cases. It is well settled by now that once there is an order of the two cases being inquired into or tried together as if both of them had been instituted on a police report, the complaint case looses its identity and separate existence as it merges with the police case. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the instant proceeding based upon the complaint petition is an apparent abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the impugned order as also the criminal proceeding is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 17th day of July, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.