(1.) THE petitioners in all these petitions are the accused in C.C. No. 65 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Nagercoil. The first respondent Police filed the final report against the accused. The second respondent herein originally filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, against the accused and the complaint was taken on file and the sworn statement of the second respondent herein was recorded and statements of some witnesses also were recorded. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the 1st respondent police ordering for an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and to submit a report. The first respondent Police, on receipt of the said complaint and order, registered a case in Crime No. 44 of 2009 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 477(A), 423, 447, 427 read with 34 IPC and after investigation, instead of filing a report before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Nagercoil, filed the final report against 10 accused before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Nagercoil for offences under Sections 120-B, 406,420,423,465,468 read with 34 IPC and the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.
(2.) THE accused/petitioners herein aggrieved overtaking cognizance of the case by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Nagercoil, filed these quash petitions.
(3.) THE learned counsel Mr.Thambi, appearing for the second respondent/de facto complainant, submitted that Police always have power to investigate regarding cognizable offences even on any information and as Magistrate can forward a complaint to the Police for the purpose of investigation under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C, even if report is called under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and any final report is filed by Police after investigation, there is no illegality and it could be treated, as it proceeded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Nagercoil Court had jurisdiction under normal circumstance and the said jurisdiction cannot be wiped out. There is no bar expressed or implied in the Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of the same offence by any Magistrate of more than one having concurrent jurisdiction. The learned counsel also pointed out Section 210 Cr.P.C. and submitted that if private complaint is filed and Police investigation is also pending, the Court has to wait for completion of investigation and after the filing of final report by the Police both the cases must be tried together. The learned counsel in support of his contentions relied on the following decisions: a) Rashid Ahmad and Another v. Emperor AIR 1932 Lahore 579 : LNIND 1931 BOM 205: (1935) 1 MLJ 405 b) Bhudaraju Seshagiri Rao and Others v. T. V. Sarma and Another 1976 Crl. L.J 902 c) M.O. Hasan Muthoos Maricar (P) Ltd. v. U. Nargis and Others 2003 Crl. LJ 3620 : LNIND 2003 MAD 370