(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IT appears that on report of the present petitioner, Dev Narayan Bhagat, an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 201/34 IPC was registered against the father -in -law and brother -in -law of the deceased and the matter was taken up for investigation. After sometime on 26.8.94, complaint case no. 801/94 was filed by the wife of the deceased, inter alia, making allegations against the brothers and other relations of the deceased. The learned C.J.M. without awaiting the police report in the matter, proceeded further in the matter and took cognizance.
(3.) IN the opinion of this Court, the argument is contrary to the provisions as contained under section 2(1) read with section 210 Cr. PC. Section 2 defines the word offence saying that an act or omission made punishable under law would be an offence. Undisputedly, the police is making investigation on the report made by the present petitioner. On the report of the present petitioner, no investigation can be made into the allegations which have been made by the complainant against the present petitioner. If the scheme of section 210 is seen in its true perspective, it would clearly appear that in a case where the police investigation is going on in relation to some offence and private complaint is also filed in relation to the same offence (the offence cannot be misunderstood with the word incident) then the Court may refer the complaint or may await the report of the prosecution. If the report comes out to be positive against the named accused in complaint, then the complaint shall stand merged and would be tried together with the police case and in case the police report does not say anything against some of the accused named in the complaint then the Court shall proceed with the complaint. In the present case the incident is one but the offences are different, the accused persons are different and each will have to see the book of the rule for the acts or omission committed by him.