Naresh Kumar vs State of Punjab

A. S. Nehra, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated January 25, 1990, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha and order dated January 20, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under :

A complaint was filed on March 25, 1986 by Gopal Krishan against Naresh Kumar for offences under Sections 420/406/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code for which Naresh Kumar had been summoned to face trial. On the report made by Gopal Krishan to the Police, First Information Report bearing No. 13 of February 14, 1987 had been registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha under Sections 420, 468, 471/120B, IPC against Naresh Kumar and Sunil Kumar. Challan had been presented in the Court in Police case on May 21, 1988. Thereafter an order amalgamating the complaint case with the challan case was made on July 14, 1988. Petitioners were charged for offences under Sections 120B/468/471/420 IPC on August 6, 1988. Witnesses had been examined in the State case. Thereafter, on August 17, 1989, an application was made by Gopal Krishan that he had the right of examining the witnesses which were not cited as witnesses in the challan case. Gopal Krishan also wanted to get the disputed handwriting and signatures of Naresh Kumar for comparison with standard signatures and the handwriting. The trial Magistrate after hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the application of Gopal Krishan to examine the witnesses cited in the complaint case but application for taking specimen handwriting the signatures of Naresh Kumar, petitioner for comparison was not allowed. Aggrieved by the order dated January 25, 1990, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed on January 20, 1993.

As per Section 210 clause 2, in the case, the report is made by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of an offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall enquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.

Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the Additional Public Prosecutor was incharge of the case, no application filed by the complainant for examining the witnesses cited in the complaint was maintainable. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Medichetty Ramakistiah and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh, 659. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Gopal Krishan has relied upon an authority Kadiresen v. Kasim, 1987 Criminal Law Journal 1225.

On July 16, 1988, the trial court had directed that as per provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. the complaint case was to be tried together with the case arising out of the police report. The complaint was only against Naresh Kumar whereas the police has presented challan against Naresh Kumar and Sunil Kumar both. However, in spite of this direction and the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., the Additional Public Prosecutor will enter appearance only in respect of the case taken on the police report. The complaint case was not amalgamated. It was just to be tried together with the State case. The complainant could not adduce evidence in the State case except under the direction of the Additional Public Prosecutor as provided under Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but as far as the private case was concerned, it was the right as well as duty of the complainant to adduce his evidence. The authority Medichetty Ramakistiah and Ors. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not applicable to the facts of the case because in 1959, Section 210 Cr.P.C. was not on the statute whereas Kadiresen v. Kasim (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegality or informity in the orders dated January 25, 1990 and January 20, 1993, passed by the trial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, respectively.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.