Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2568
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.
Hazrat Ali @ Mir Hazrat Ali - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2014
Decided On : 25-02-2014
For the Revisionist : Mohd. Shoeb Khan.
For the Opposite Parties :Govt. Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of section 210 Cr.P.C. in relation to ongoing police investigations and its impact on the proceedings of the complaint case.
Headnote:
section 210 Cr.P.C - Criminal Proceedings - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC - [section 210 Cr.P.C]
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed a criminal revision assailing the validity of an order in a complaint case. The revisionist argued that the proceedings of the complaint case should be put on hold as an FIR was also lodged against him for the same subject-matter, and the investigation in that police case was ongoing. The Lower Court did not find favor with the revisionist's application under section 210 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the police investigation had concluded with a final report submitted in favor of the accused revisionist, and therefore, the provision under section 210 Cr.P.C. was inoperative. The Court also noted that the bail application of the accused revisionist was pending disposal and the case had been posted for the final hearing on the main bail application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of section 210 Cr.P.C. and whether the proceedings of the complaint case should be put on hold due to the ongoing police investigation for the same subject-matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provision under section 210 Cr.P.C. is required to stay the proceedings of the complaint case only if the police investigation is in progress with relation to the offence which is also the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial of the complaint case. Since the police investigation had concluded with a final report, the provision was not applicable.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed as being sans merit.
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.: -
The present criminal revision has been filed assailing the validity of the order dated 16.1.2014 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kushinagar at Padrauna in complaint case No. 509 of 2013, Mushtaq v. Mainuddin and others under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC pertaining to P.S. Pateharwa, District Kushinagar whereby the application under sections 210 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the revisionist has been disposed of in a way which is tantamount to rejection.
2. Heard Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned Counsel for the revisionist and also Sri Hari Pratap Gupta who had filed his power on behalf of respondent No. 2 today which is taken on record. The entire record has been perused including the impugned order.
3. The contention of the Counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is facing criminal proceedings in a complaint case as an accused but about the same subject-matter an FIR was also lodged against him along with another co-accused and the investigation in that police case is going on. In such circumstances according to the submission of the Counsel for the revisionist the proceedings of the complaint case going on against the revisionist cannot go on and the same ought to be put on hold as per the provision of section 210 Cr.P.C. An application in this regard had been moved before the Lower Court but the same did not find favour with the Court and the Court is still proceeding against the accused revisionist as before. According to the Counsel, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law because it is not following the mandate of section 210 Cr.P.C and is in breach of the statutory law.
4. Counsel for the respondent as well as the AGA both have made their submissions in rebuttal and have pointed out that actually the police case referred to by the revisionist was investigated by the police and thereupon a final report was submitted in favour of the accused. Therefore, at the time of the disposal of the application moved under section 210 Cr.P.C. there was no investigation pending against the accused revisionist. According to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent the end of investigation and its termination in the submission of the final report automatically makes the provision under section 210 Cr.P.C. un-operative and there was no other option for the Lower Court seized with the proceedings of the complaint case than to keep the proceedings going as before.
5. This Court had the occasion to peruse the record of the case as well as impugned order and the same reveal that after the application under section 210 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the revisionist, a report was called up from the police station and it was reported thereupon by the police that though a case crime No. 579 of 2012 was registered against the accused as well as other co-accused under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC but after investigation of the case, final report was submitted. According to the police report the accused revisionist and other co-accused were no more wanted in the aforesaid case crime number.
6. It was on this ground that the Lower Court proceeded to dispose of the application keeping in view the report furnished by the police station. The impugned order also reveals that the bail application of the accused revisionist is pending disposal and for the interregnum period the accused had been released on interim bail and the case has been posted for the final hearing on the main bail application.
7. It may be relevant to extract the section 210 Cr.P.C. at this stage for proper appreciation of facts and law both
Section 210 Cr.P.C reads as follows:
"210(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 s
