BHANJA PARAMANIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the informant in C.R. Case No. 595 of 1996 of the Court of S.D.J.M. Balasore corresponding to Balasore Town P.S. Case No. 160 of 1996 has filed this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. challenging the legality of the order dated 6-4-1998 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. No. 19/63 of 1997 refusing the prayer of the petitioner to stay the further proceeding in the case iting (sic) commitment of the complaint case I.C.C. No. 113 of 1997.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to this petition are as follows :- The petitioner lodged an FIR at the Balasore Town P.S. against the opposite party No. 2, Babula alias Sanjaya Kumar Behera alias Tarai alleging that he kidnapped his minor daughter Kumari Sanjulata Paramanik to compel her to marry him. On the basis of the above information aforesaid P.S. Case was registered. Police took up investigation and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the opposite party No. 2 for the offences under Sections 363, 366, IPC. The said case after being committed to the Court of session has been transferred to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Balasore and after framing of charge while the case was pending for trial, the petitioner moved a petition with a prayer to stay further proceeding on the ground that there is a complaint case relating to the same occurrence and the said complaint case has to be clubbed with the aforesaid sessions case as envisaged under S. 210, Cr. P.C. for joint trial. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, however, rejected the petition as he found that the offences of which cognizance has been taken in the C.R. Case and the offences alleged in the complaint are different and the accused persons are also different. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The only question involved in this case is whether the further proceeding of S.T. Case No. 19/63 of 1997 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Balasore can be stayed till the complaint case i.e. I.C.C. No. 113 of 1997 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Balasore which has been filed by the daughter of the petitioner is committed to the Court of session. In this context, it is noticed that in the C.R. Case police submitted charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 363 and 366, IPC against the opposite party No. 2 on 11-3-1997. The complaint was filed by the daughter of the petitioner on 7-4-97 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 376 and 109, IPC against the opposite party No. 2 and three others. Thus, it appears that much after the filing of charge-sheet, complaint has been lodged. Therefore, a question arises whether to such a case Section 210, Cr. P.C. is applicable. It appears that the said complaint case was pending for appearance of the accused persons by the date the impugned order was passed. It is glaring that the offences alleged in the above noted two cases are different. In the C.R. Case the opposite party No. 2 is the sole accused whereas in the complaint case besides the opposite party No. 2 there are three other accused persons. In Santosh Kumar Pradhan v. Lalbehari Behera alias Jatia reported in (1986) 61 Cut LT 239, a Division Bench of this Court considered this question and has held that Section 210 of the Code has no application in terms to such a case since by the time the complaint case was instituted, charge-sheet in the case instituted on police report had already been submitted and no investigation was in progress in relation to the said offence at that point of time. It is also a settled principle that the complaint case and the G.R. Case can be tried together as if both the cases were instituted on a police report where the accused persons and the offences alleged are same in the complaint case as well as in the C.R. Case. For the offences which are not common, the accused persons are to face separate trial and the trial of that case cannot be clubbed with the trial of offences in the other case. In the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for stay of the sessions trial till the other case is committed to the Court of Session for clubbing the same with the sessions case arising out of the C.R. Case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.