Held learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

2. The applicant complainant Ramji Shukla has approached this Court with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 3-10-2008 passed by C.J.M., Allahabad in complaint case No. 23676/2008 (Ramji v. Sonu Agrawal), under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Naini, District Allahabad.

3. A perusal of the complaint instituted by the applicant, vide annexure No. 1 to this application, before C.J.M., Allahabad, registered as complaint case No. 23676/2008 (Ramji v. Sonu Agrawal), indicates that the allegations levelled were that of causing murder of son of applicant Shivanshu aged about 16 years by crushing him under vehicle No. UP 70 AV 2700.

4. It transpires that when the complaint was filed on 14-8-2008, C.J.M., Allahabad was apprise of the fact that in respect of the said incident, a FIR vide crime No. 371 of 2008, under sections 279, 304 A, 427 I.P.C. was already registered which is pending investigation. C.J.M., Allahabad, therefore, stopped the proceedings of the complaint case and called for a report from the police who reported that crime was investigated and a charge-sheet had, already been submitted against the accused persons on 207-2008 for offences mentioned.

5. After receiving the police report in respect of filing of charge-sheet, C.J.M., Allahabad dismissed the complaint of the applicant under Section 203 Cr.P.C., for the reason that the police has submitted the charge-sheet in the above noted offences of causing death by rash and negligence act punishable under Sections 304, 379, 427 I.P.C.

6. The controversy involved in this case revolves around the applicability of Section 210 Cr.P.C. For a clear understanding Section 210 Cr.P.C., is reproduced herein below;

"(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.

(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer, under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of polices report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.

(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

7. Above phraseology of Section 210 Cr.P.C. indicate that what is sine qua non for applicability of the said Section is commission of the same offence. If the offence is different, then Section 210 Cr.P.C. does not have any application at all for clubbing the prosecution. This aspect is clear from conjoint reading of Sections 210 (1) and 210 (3), Cr. P.C.

8. In above view, C.J.M., Allahabad committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the complaint of the applicant under Section 203 Cr.P.C., for the reason that the police has submitted the charge-sheet in respect of the same incident. Happening of the same incident is not material for applicability of Section 210 Cr.P.C., for conducting a. single trial. What is important is that the offence alleged is the same. Consequently, I rejection of complaint by C.J.M., Allahabad by passing the impugned order is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained in law. The charge which was levelled by the applicant in his complaint were that of causing murder of his son by repeatedly crushing him under the vehicle., The sa