IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40988 of 2007 GANESH CHOUDHARY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 5.2.2010. Heard. Two cases were initiated for the same incident and for the same act. The first was through a written report presented to the officer-in-charge of Pirbahore police station in which only two persons, i.e., Ganesh Choudhary and Ashok Choudhary were named as accused. The date of occurrence was the same in the two cases. The other case was complaint case no.896(c)of 2004. In the complaint case two more names were added besides the two who were already named in the FIR. The additional names were the wife of petitioner Ganesh Choudhary, i.e., petitioner no.3 Munni Devi and daughter of Ganesh Choudhary, i.e., petitioner no.4 Gudiya Devi. The court on presentation of police report took cognizance of offence on that report. At the same time on presentation of the compliant petition the Magistrate proceeded to enquire into it and summoned the four accused persons. The petitioners approached the Revisional Court in Cr.Revision No.771 of 2005 which was disposed - 2 - of by order dated 9th August, 2007 and the order of summoning was upheld by the revisional court. What I want to point out is that, the court of Magistrate and the revisional court both over looked the provisions of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. which requires the proceeding in the complaint petition to be stayed as against those persons who figured as accused in the police case if the complaint petition has been filed for the same offence. It is true that there is some embellishments in the complaint petition but, the sum and substance of the allegations are the same and almost similar allegations are reflected in the complaint petition. It was incumbent upon the Magistrate, to stay the proceedings against FIR named accused in the complaint case. He had also sought a report under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. as may appear from Annexure-4 indicating that for the same offence Pirbahore P.S.Case No.64 of 2004 had been registered and two persons, i.e., petitioner nos.1 and 2 had been chargesheeted by the police. On a conspectus of the provision of law and the facts what this court feels is that summoning of the two accused persons, i.e., the - 3 - petitioner no.1 and 2 is completely erroneous and was a sheer example of the abuse of the process of court. As regards the complaint case no.896(C)of 2004 the order of summoning passed in the above noted complaint petition in respect of Ganesh Choudhary and Ashok Choudhary are hereby quashed. The other part of the summoning order is left intact. What may further be directed by this court to the C.J.M., Patna is that he should seek a report from his office as to who are the officers trying complaint case no.896(c)of 2004 and Pirbahore P.S.Case No.64 of 2004 and if he finds that the two cases are being tried by two different officers, then he should pass an order directing the trial of the two cases by a single Magistrate. This petition is allowed partly in the above terms and with the above directions. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )