The court emphasized the need to avoid parallel trials and highlighted the provisions of Section 205-E of Cr.PC, which mandate trying both complaint and charge-sheet together.

1. Smt. Trishala Devi W/o Sat Pal, R/o Badheri, Tehsil and District Samba, sometime after 8th July, 2009 filed a criminal complaint against the present petitioner and other accused in the Court of JMIC (Munsiff), Samba, alleging therein that she was assaulted and injured by the petitioner and other accused and that they be punished for having committed offence punishable under Section 323/325/451/504 RPC. Learned JMIC (Munsiff), Samba took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner and other accused.

2. The respondent No. 2 while filing the complaint also appears to have lodged the report with local Police Station leading to registration of case FIR 237/09 under Section 323/325 RPC. While the complaint was pending before learned JMIC (Munsiff), Samba, the investigation in the matter was being conducted by the officer to whom it was entrusted. The investigation was concluded as proved against the petitioner and other accused and culminated in the charge-sheet presented before Additional Munsif/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samba on 04.02.2011.

3. The order of learned Additional Munsif/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samba, dated 8th April, 2011 was assailed in a criminal revision petition before learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba. The ground urged in the revision petition was that learned JMIC (Munsiff), Samba having already taken cognizance in the matter on a complaint filed by respondent No. 2, the Additional Munsif/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samba lacked the power to take cognizance on charge-sheet filed by Police Station, Samba relating to the same occurrence that was subject matter of criminal complaint before JMIC (Munsiff), Samba. It was urged that the procedure laid down under Section 205-E Cr.PC was not followed by learned Additional Munsif/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samba and that once cognizance was taken on a complaint, learned Additional Munsif/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samba had become "functus officio" and was stripped of any power to take cognizance on the charge-sheet filed during pendency of the complaint. Reliance was placed on law laid down in "Ibrahim Khan v. State of Rajasthan." 1999 Crl. L.J 345 (Raj HC).

4. The Revisional Court opining that in terms of Section 205-E Cr.PC, both the cases, i.e. complaint and charge-sheet are to be tried together by one Court, transferred the criminal challan/charge-sheet titled "State v. Bansi Lal" file No. 169/Challan to the Court of JMIC (Munsiff), Samba where the complaint was pending. The transferee Court was asked to try both the cases viz complaint and challan/charge-sheet.

5. The order dated 17th August, 2011, whereby the revision petition has been disposed of is questioned in the present petition under 561-A Cr.PC on the grounds that the order of the Trial Court framing charge against the petitioner and other accused as also the order of the Revisional Court on the grounds that the orders are bad in law and in conflict with the procedure laid down under Section 205-E Cr.PC. It is insisted that the Courts below ought to have closed the proceedings in the charge-sheet.

6. Heard and considered.

7. Though the victim of an offence, who was reported the occurrence to the police and got a case registered, is expected to wait for the results of investigation, once Police machinery is set in motion at his instance and investigation initiated, yet law does not prohibit filing of criminal complaint while the Investigation Agency is busy in investigating the matter. What is disfavoured is parallel trials relating to the same occurrence. The dictates of public policy make it imperative that evidence is not repeated, the witnesses are not compelled to cross the witness box and deposed regarding the same occurrence more than once, creating extra pressure on already scarce Court time and lead to multiplicity of litigation. The principle finds expression in Section 205-E of Cr.PC. It would be profitable to reproduce the provision hereunder;

205-E. "Procedure t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document