N A S ANSARI Vs. MOHAMMED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the accused in C. C. No. 153 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Chidambaram. THE respondent is the private complainant. In respect of an occurrence which took place on 26. 4. 1984 at about 10. 00 A. M. , on the main Road, Chidambaram, the respondent filed a complaint before the trial Magistrate on 7. 6. 1984. THE Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 8. 6. 1984 and issued process under Sec. 204, Crl. P. C., to the petitioners. However, it was brought to the notice of the trial Magistrate by the petitioners, that already the respondent had filed a complaint in respect of the same occurrence before the same Court on 23. 5. 1984 and the Magistrate had directed the concerned police to investigate the matter by forwarding the complaint under Sec. 156 (3), Crl. P. C. In that background on 1. 121984 the Magistrate stayed further proceedings in c. C. No. 153 of 1984 and was awaiting the report of the police in the complaint forwarded to them for investigation. On 29. 5. 1985 the respondent filed a petition to vacate the stay; since the police had neither registered a crime on the complaint forwarded to them for investigation nor examined the complainant or any of his witnesses in pursuance of the order of the Court, the trial magistrate on 17. 7. 1985 passed the impugned order vacating the order of stay made by him earlier, so that the trial Court be proceeded with in accordance with law. It is this order of the Magistrate dated 17. 7. 1985 that is challenged before me by the petitioners.

(2.) THE only point canvassed by Mr. C. D. Sekkizhar , learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the complaint had been forwarded by the Magistrate for investigation to the police under Sec. 156 (3), Crl. P. C. , the magistrate will have to call for a report from the police officer who was directed to investigate the case, and then only dispose of the second complaint on the same facts, in accordance with law. Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam , learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the complaint had been forwarded even on 23. 5. 1984, under Sec. 156 (3), Crl. P. C. , for investigation and report, since no action had been taken by the police who had exhibited a lethargic attitude, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order on 17. 7. 1985.