SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU Vs. M. PRAKASH RAO DORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant who had earlier lodged FIR on the basis of which charge-sheet was submitted under Sec.436, IPC resulting in commitment of the case to the Court of Session and registered as Session Case No. 131/90 has filed this application under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. seeking staying of further proceedings of the sessions case till the complaint case ICC No. 49 of 1989, registered on his complaint, is committed and merged with the sessions case. The factual background of the case is that the FIR was lodged on 5/6th of April, 1989 alleging commission of offence at about 1 a.m. under Sec. 436/34, IPC by opp. party No. 1 and his associates. Later on he filed the complaint before the JMFC, Aska on 19-6-1989 against the opp. parties Nos.1, 2 and 3 on the same facts alleging commission by them of offence under Sec. 436/34, IPC asserting police inaction on the FIR. The statement of the complainant under Sec. 200, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 1-7-1989 and the case was posted for inquiry under Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. On 16-10-1939 charge-sheet was submitted by police in G.R. Case No. 82/89 against the opp. party No. 1 alone under Sec. 436, IPC. The case was subsequently committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of Session and is pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Aska for trial registered as Sessions Case No. 2/90. In the complaint case, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against opp. parties 1 to 3 on 27-3-1990 after completion of the Sec. 202, Cr.P.C. inquiry. The taking of cognizance on the complaint was assailed by the opp. parties 1 to 3 before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 63/90, which was dismissed on 26-6-1990 at the time of admission. In the criminal revision, an order of stay of further proceedings of the complaint case had been passed which had been brought to the notice of the JMFC on 22-8-1990. A petition Was moved on 1-2-1991 before the Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Casa No. 2/90 to stay further proceedings in the sessions case till the complaint case was committed and merged with it, but the petition was rejected and on the very same day the present application has, been filed with the averment that the petitioner had no knowledge of the sessions case and had come to know of it for the first time when he was served with summons from the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge directing him to attend the Court of on 4-2-1991 for giving evidence in the case.

(2.) It is the submission of Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that since in the complaint case cognizance had already been taken under the very same section also against other accused besides opp. party No. 1, and that the case is to be committed for trial, it is only fit and proper that both the cases should be merged and proceeded with together. For the purpose of the submission, reliance is placed on the principles of Sec. 210(2), Cr.P.C.

(3.) To appreciate the submission, an analysis of Sec. 210, Cr.P.C. is necessary. The section is as follows :