G SREERAMULU Vs. RANGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a complaint in the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad out of which C.C. 436 of 1977 arises. In that complaint the petitioner herein has made N.K. Subhramanyam as Accused-I and V. Rangeswamy as Accused-2, and according to the petitioner, the date of occurrence April 1977. THE fact alleged in the complaint, according to the petitioner, make out a cause under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. Another complaint has been filed by A-2 in C.C. 436 of 1977 in that complaint the date Sub-Divisonal Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur. In that complaint the date of occurrence is stated to be 20th June 1977. Rangaswamy, who is the Complainant before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur has made Sriramulu as A-1 and GVS. Ranga Rao as A-2. Now, GVS. Rangarao, A-2, before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, is not ihe accused in C.C. 436 of 1977 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, nor is Subrahmanyam, A-1, in C.C. No. 436 of 1977 on the file of the Xt Metropolitan- Magistrate, Secunderabad, as accused in the complaint file before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur. THE facts alleged in the complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur make out a case of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. An application has been filed by the complainant in C.C. 436/77 on the file of the XI Metropolitan- Magistrate, Secunderabad, under Section 186 of the new Criminal Procedure Code to call for the complaint which has been filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur. Mr. DVK. Sarma the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner herein relies upon the provisions of Section 186(b) of the new Criminal Procedure Code and submits that since the complaint filed by his client was the first complaint, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 186(b) Cr. P.C. to call for the records in the complaint filed the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, although the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. THE Office has raised the objection that this Court cannot invoke power under Section 186(b) Cr. P.C. having regard to the circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the office has to be accepted and the contention advanced by Mr. Sarma has to be rejected, the reason being that the two complaints are different from each other, dates of occurrences are different and some of the accused are also different. THErefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that Section 186 (b) Cr. P.C. applies to this case. To my mind, Section 186 (b) Cr. P.C applies only when both the cases are common and they arise out of the same occurrence or some transaction, and the parties are same, in which case, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court within whose local limits of appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced would have jurisdiction to invoke powers under Section 186(b) Cr. P.C. but to a case of this nature Section 186(b) Cr. P.C. cannot be applicable. Hence, the Office objection is accepted. M.N.R. Crl. M.P. Not allowed.