IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.171 of 2008 1. RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, S/o. late Ganesh Prasad Singh, 2. Premlata Devi, w/o. Rajendra Kumar Singh, 3. Rakesh Kumar, S/o. Rajendra Prasad Singh @ Rajendra Kumar Singh, All r/o. Teghra, P.S. Baveli, Kharagpur, District- Munger. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Governtment of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Munger. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur. 5. The D.I.G., Munger Range, Munger. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Munger. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kharagpur, District- Munger. 8. Officer-in-Charge, Kharagpur P.S., Kharagpur, District- Munger. 9. Bindu Devi D/o. Jai Nandan Mandal, r/o. Teghra, P.S. Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger. ----------- 05. 11.08.2009 The petitioners pray for quashing of the F.I.R. under Kharagpur P.S. Case No.201 of 2007 under Section 498A/34 of I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act lodged by informant Bindu Kumari against the petitioners and others. The date of occurrence in the F.I.R. is from 02.07.2004 to 10.03.2005. Referring Annexure-2 which is Complaint Case No.270(c) of 2005 as filed by the informant Bindu Kumari against the petitioners alleging the same offence stated to have been committed between the same periods i.e., 02.07.2004 to 10.03.2005. Learned counsel further pointed out vide order dated 05.07.2005, Annexure-2 series that cognizance of the offence under Complaint Case No.270(c) of 2005 was taken under Sections 498A and 323 of the I.P.C. against three petitioners and they are facing trial before the S.D.J.M., Munger. On these facts the petitioners have prayed that since the - 2 - informant (respondent No.9) had lodged the F.I.R. under Kharagpur P.S. Case No.201 of 2007 for the same offence committed within same period, there is no justification for any investigation being continued on the F.I..R. inasmuch as the petitioners are already being prosecuted for the same offence under Complaint Case No.270(c) of 2005 before learned S.D.J.M., Munger. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that under the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., when it is brought to the knowledge of the Magistrate that during the continuation of a complaint case a police investigation is in progress, the Magistrate will call for a report from the police and after receiving of the report both the cases will be tried together. There is no denial of this fact that the offences in both the cases are similar and the time of occurrence as well as the parties are also same. In such view of the matters I find that instead of passing of an order for the quashing of the F.I.R. it will be proper to direct the Magistrate to call for a report from the police regarding the case under Kharagpur P.S. Case No.201 of 2007, under section 498A/34 of I.P.C. and on receipt of such report both the cases should be tried together. It appears that in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant (respondent No.9), trial is proceeding under Complaint Case No.270(c) of 2005 before the S.D.J.M., Munger. It is submitted that if there is delay in submission of report by the police as is - 3 - required to be submitted under Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 201 of 2007 the trial of the case will be delayed. Therefore, the learned Magistrate will ask the police to submit final form at the earliest not later than three months from the date of requisition as made by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with the above direction. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)