Back
1977 Supreme(All) 182
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H.N. Seth, J.
Chiraunji Lal Pachauri
Versus
State
Decided On : 01 August 1977
The Magistrate has the discretion to stay proceedings in either of the two cases (complaint case and police case) in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 210 - SECTION 484 - TRIAL OF COMPLAINT CASE AND POLICE CASE - MERGER OF CASES - DISCRETION OF MAGISTRATE - INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was facing a complaint case and a police case for the same offence. The complaint case was instituted before the enactment of the new CrPC, while the police case was instituted after the enactment of the new CrPC. The applicant filed an application before the Magistrate to merge the two cases and try them together as per the procedure laid down in Section 210 of the new CrPC. The Magistrate rejected the application, holding that the provisions of Section 210 were not attracted as the investigation in the case was pending when the new CrPC came into force.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Magistrate was right in observing that the trial of the complaint case, which had already commenced under the provisions of the old CrPC, had to be concluded in accordance with the procedure laid down in the old CrPC, as provided in Section 484 of the new CrPC. However, the Court also held that the Magistrate had the discretion to stay proceedings in either of the two cases in the interest of justice. In the instant case, the Court found that the Magistrate had not applied his mind to the question of whether it would be in the interest of justice to proceed with the complaint case instead of the police case. The Court also found that the accused had made the request for being tried in accordance with the procedure applicable for trial of police case at a stage before any substantial proceedings for the trial of the complaint case had taken place.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 210 of the new CrPC were attracted in the instant case. 2. Whether the Magistrate had the discretion to stay proceedings in either of the two cases in the interest of justice. 3. Whether the Magistrate had applied his mind to the question of whether it would be in the interest of justice to proceed with the complaint case instead of the police case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 210 of the new CrPC are attracted only where a complaint case is instituted after the enforcement of the new CrPC and if at the time of its institution, a police investigation in relation to an offence which is the subject matter of the complaint, is pending. 2. The Magistrate has the discretion to stay proceedings in either of the two cases in the interest of justice. 3. The Magistrate had not applied his mind to the question of whether it would be in the interest of justice to proceed with the complaint case instead of the police case.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the orders passed by the Magistrate and directed him to stay further proceedings in the complaint case and proceed with the trial of the police case in accordance with law.
( 1 ) BY this application Under Section 482 of the Cr P. C,. the applicant Chiranji Lal Pachaurj prays that the orders dated 14th May, 1976 and 19th June 1976, passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Mathura be quashed and he be directed to deal with the criminal case against the applicant, pending before him, in accordance with law.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this application, briefly stated, are that on 8th February 1972 one Radhey Shyam (opposite party No. (2) lodged a First Information Report at the police station Kotwali, Mathura, on the basis of which a case Under Section 457 I. P. C. was registered against the applicant. While the police was investigating the case, Radhey Shyam on the basis of the same facts, filed a complaint Under Section 457/380 I. P. C. against the applicant on 14th August, 1970, In due course, the police completed investigation and submitted a charge-sheet Under Section 448 I. P. C. against the applicant on 26th August, 1974 after the repeal of the Cr. P. C. 1898, (hereinafter referred to as the old Code, and enactment of Cr. P. C. , 1973, hereinafter referred to as the new Code ). Subsequently, both the complaint and police cases came to be pending before the Munsif Magistrate, Mathura.
( 3 ) ON 27th January 1976 the applicant moved an application praying that both the complaint and the police cases be merged and after staying proceedings in the complaint case the trial should take place in accordance with the procedure applicable for the trial of the police case as laid down in Section 210 of the new Code. For some reason, the court concerned did not pass any order on the application. The applicant then moved another application on 14th May, 1976 alleging that although the police had submitted a charge sheet, its copy had not been supplied to the applicant. The applicant prayed that both the complaint and the police cases should be dealt with in accordance with Section 210 of the new Code. The Munsif Magistrate rejected this application by his order dated 14th May, 1976. He held that as the investigation in the case was pending when the new Code came into force, the case was as laid down in Section 484 of the new Code, to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in the old Code, and that the provisions contained in Section 210 of the new Code were not attracted. He also opined that under the old Code there is no provision for amalgamating the trial of two cases. However, while rejecting the application, the Munsif Magistrate, directed that the trial of the complaint case was to proceed and that the police case was to be merged with it. On 16th June, 1973 the applicant moved yet another application praying for a direction that the copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, recorded by the police during investigation be supplied to him so as to enable him to cross-examine those witnesses. The Munsif Magistrate rejected this application as well bv his order dated 19th June, 1976 holding that in cases which governed by the procedure applicable to the complaint cases it was not necessary to furnish the copies of the statements recorded Under Section 161 Cr. P. C. to the accused.
( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, the applicant had come up to this Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that as the police had submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant on 26th August, 1974 i. e. on a date subsequent to the coming into force of the new Code, the case was fully covered by Section 210 thereof which lays down that the trial commenced on the basis of the complaint has to be stayed and both the complaint and the police cases have to be tried together as if they have been instituted on a police report.
( 5 ) IN order to deal with the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant it would be pertinent to extract Section 210 of the new Code which finds place in Chapter XVI dealing with the commencement of proceedings before a Magistrate as also Section 48
