The main legal point established in the judgment is that for invoking Section 210 Cr.P.C., the offences and accused persons in both cases must be the same.

1. This criminal petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 13-12-2011 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kamrup in Complaint Case No. 2135c/2002.

Factual Background :

2. The respondent No. 2, as complainant, lodged a complaint on 24-09-2002 against Ms. Aparajita Nath and Kalyan Nath alleging commission of offence u/s 420/427/494 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the said complaint, registered the C.R. Case no. 2135c/2002 and took cognizance of offence u/s 420/427/494/34 IPC against the petitioners, Ms. Aparajita Nath and Kalyan Nath. During pendency of the said complaint case, father of the respondent no. 2, Sri Ramakantha Das lodged an FIR with the Chandmari Police Station on 13-11-2002, alleging that they had received threatening calls from an unknown person on 19th October, 2002, 23rd October, 2002, 28th October, 2002 & 10th November, 2002. It was further alleged in the FIR that, an unknown person was seen moving suspiciously in front of the house of the informant, who threatened to finish the family of the informant. On the basis of the said FIR, the police registered Chandmari Police Station Case No. 456/2002 u/s 294/507 I.PC. and after completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet against the petitioners Ms. Aparajita Nath and Kalyan Nath as well as one Siddarth Ray and Aninditha Ray u/s 294/507/120-B/34/49/494/506 IPC. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance and eventually framed charges against the petitioners and Siddartha Ray. However, the charge-sheeted accused Aninditha Ray was discharged. Trial proceeded in both the cases. In the G.R. Case, after completion of prosecution evidence and recording of statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C, the case was fixed for argument. On the date of argument, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution, stating that C.R. Case No. 2135c/2002 was also pending for same offence and as such,prayed for simultaneous trial and judgment of both the cases, i.e., the complaint case and the police case. The petitioners also filed an application in the complaint case, wherein, the evidence-in-chief before charges was taken and the case was at the stage of charge, seeking to cross-examine the complainant. Upon such applications, learned Magistrate did not pronounce judgment of the police case, and fixed the next date for hearing the petitions. After hearing the parties, learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 13-11-2011, whereby, Learned Magistrate disposed off both the applications filed by the present petitioners seeking to cross-examine the complainant in the complaint case, as well as, the petition filed by the prosecution in the G.R. Case praying for simultaneous trial and pronouncement of judgment of both the cases. By the said impugned order, learned Magistrate clubbed both the cases together invoking the provision of Section 210 Cr.P.C. and held that "both the cases are clubbed together and the complaint case will be proceeded like a case instituted on police report".

3. Learned counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhuyan for the petitioners and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. D. Das for the respondent No. 1 were heard. None appeared for the respondent No. 2, though notice was served on him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Bhuyan submitted that the offences in both the cases were different, except one, i.e., offence u/s 494 IPC. As, neither the offences, nor the accused persons were same in both the cases, the learned trial court fell in grave error by invoking the provision of Section 210 (2) of the Cr.P.C, inasmuch as, the condition required for invoking section 210 Cr.P.C was totally absent, submits Mr. Bhuyan. Further contention of Mr. Bhuyan was that the prayer of the prosecution in the GR Case for simultaneous hearing and pronouncement of judgment was also erroneous and misconceived, as the cases involved, were not cross cases file