( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. PC has been filed for challenging the orders passed by the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet dated 3-3-1999 passed in Crl. MP No. 180 of 1999 in CC No. 168 of 1998 under which the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition tiled under Section 210 of Cr. PC.

( 2 ) IT appears that in respect of an incident which occurred on 19-7-1998 at about 7. 00 a. m. in the agricultural lands at Kondakavuru village, a case was registered in Crime No. 313 of 1998 of Narasaraopet Taluk Police Station which, after investigation, resulted in filing of charge-sheet and the same was taken cognizance of in CC No. 168 of 1998. The de-facto complainant in that case not being satisfied with the FIR registered in connection with this case, filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate which was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156 of Cr. PC. On the basis of this, a case in Crime No. 320 of 1998 was registered at Narasaraopet Taluk Police Station.

( 3 ) IN the private complaint, various offences are alleged to have been committed like offences under Sections 307, 447, 427, 194, 322, 342, 506, 120-8, 196, 201, 324 read with 149 of IPC. This complaint forwarded to the police is said to be under investigation and so far neither a report has been filed nor a final report closing the case has been filed.

( 4 ) WHILE the criminal case in CC No. 168 of 1998 was pending, on behalf of the accused, a petition under Section 210 of Cr. PC has been filed praying the trial of both the cases together. The learned Magistrate dismissed that petition by the impugned order. It is this order which is now challenged in this petition.

( 5 ) IT may be mentioned at the out set that the question of trying two cases together at this stage would not have arisen at all. On the basis of charge-sheet filed by the police, CC No. 168 of 1998 was registered. But as far as the private complaint is concerned, it is still said to be under investigation. The question of trying two cases together, therefore, does not arise. Whether investigation pending before the police would result in a charge-sheet or not, or whether any case on the basis of private complaint would be taken cognizance or not are matters which cannot be anticipated at this stage. The learned Magistrate also proceeded on the assumption that the two cases are sought to be tried together and pointing out that the offences in the two cases are different and number of the accused in those cases are also different, he dismissed the petition observing that the case in CC No. 168 of 1998 had come up for trial.

( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts relevant to the case, the order required to be passed by the learned Magistrate was not under sub-section (2) of Section 210 of Cr. PC. The learned Magistrate at best could have been requested to pass an order under sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr. PC for staying the proceedings in the CC which is already pending in his Court awaiting result of investigation on the basis of the private complaint and call for a report. As the learned Magistrate failed to notice this and proceeded on the assumption that the prayer was for joint trial of two cases he passed an order purported to be under sub-section (2) of Section 210 of Cr. PC. There was no occasion for passing such an order under sub-section (2) of Section 210 of Cr. PC.

( 7 ) UNDER these circumstances, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 3-3-1999 in Crl. MP No. 180 of 1999 is set aside.

( 8 ) IT is open to the petitioner herein to move an application if they are so advised for orders under sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr. PC for staying the proceedings in the CC pending before the learned Magistrate and calling for report of the police in respect of investigation said to be pending on the basis of the complaint forwarded by the learned Magistrate.

( 9 ) WITH the above directions, the petition is allowed.