HAZRAT ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.