MAI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the order dated 2.8.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Karnal. The Magistrate by the impugned order has exercised power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and has referred the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner-accused to the police. The Magistrate in his order has also referred to Section 210 Cr.P.C. for the reason that there is already FIR No. 134 dated 14.7.2003 registered under Sections 323/324 IPC registered at Police Station Butana in respect of the same occurrence. The allegations in the aforementioned first information report are that there was a dispute between Mai Ram petitioner-accused and one Ram Kishan regarding a piece of land and Mai Ram succeeded in Civil litigation in tehsil Court, Indri. A warrant of possession was issued and the police help was also taken. The Kanungo and Patwari had reached at the spot and the process of marking the land was in progress. Puran Chand complainant- respondent 2 is alleged to have come at the spot and raised a threat that he won't allow the demarcation of land by marketing (marketing ?) it. He stopped the process of demarcation and brought a gandassi from his house. He is alleged to have stated that he would teach a lesson to the petitioner-accused and others and hit one Pawan Kumar with the gandassi. It is further alleged that when Mai Ram petitioner-accused tried to save Pawan Kumar, the gandassi hit on his head with its reverse side. When the petitioner-accused attempted to take away the gandassi, he again gave a blow of gandassi to Ram Phal which hit him on his finger and back. In this way minor injuries were suffered by Puran Chand also. Sham Lal and Amarjit have been cited as eye witnesses.

(2.) ON 2.8.2003, complainant-respondent Puran Chand filed a complaint before the Magistrate under Sections 323, 325, 447, 506, 148 and 149 IPC against nine persons in respect of the same incident which had occurred on 14.7.2003. The Magistrate entertained the complaint and by exercising powers under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. sent the same to the police for investigation. The order dated 2.8.2003 passed by the Magistrate reads as under :-

(3.) MR . Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate receives a complaint in respect of the same incident, then it is obligatory for the Magistrate to stay any action on such a complaint by taking cognizance. According to the learned counsel, the Magistrate, instead of staying action on the complaint has taken cognizance when the investigation is already going on in case FIR No. 134 dated 14.7.2003 filed by the petitioner-accused under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Annadata Chandra Sekhar Rao and Another v. Battiprolu Venkata Basaya Subba Rao and another, 2003(3) RCR(Criminal) 729 and argued that such a course is not available to the Magistrate, who should have stayed taking of any action under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. on the complaint.