Sureshwar Thakur, J. -
(1.)The writ petitioner, purportedly became victim, of, cognizable offences, constituted, under Sections 420, 425, 465, 468, 471, 120B, and, under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as, co-respondents No. 5 to 11, through theirs, purportedly hatching, a, criminal conspiracy, theirs forging the signatures, of, the petitioner, upon, the apposite Power of Attorney, and whereafter, fraudulent sale deed(s), vis-a-vis, the writ property, became executed, with the vendees concerned, before, the subRegistrar concerned. The writ petitioner, as apparent, on a reading, of, Annexure P-1, hence embodying the afore factum, and cast, as an application, under Section 156(3) of Cr. PC, made therethrough, a, motion, before the learned JMIC concerned. Upon the afore application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, made a reference, to, the SHO Chowari, Chamba. However, it becomes further apparent, on a reading, of, Annexure P-3, annexure whereof embodies therein, qua an order of dismissal, as withdrawn, becoming made, on, the apposite complaint, as became preferred therebefore, by the complainant, writ petitioner herein. However, the afore order of dismissal, as withdrawn, of, the apposite complaint, hence made, by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, was yet, with a liberty to the complainant/writ petitioner, to, institute it afresh. Nonetheless, preceding therewith, as apparent, on a reading, of, Annexure P-7, vis-a-vis, the SHO, Police Station Chowari, Chamba, after making inquiries, vis-a-vis, the subject matter of the complaint, his concluding, vis-a-vis, no cognizable offence, being made, against the private respondents, (i) and further he has made echoing(s) therein, vis-a-vis, the remedy available to the complainant/writ petitioner, being comprised in, his making an endeavor, to, correct the revenue records.
(2.)Now, the effect, of, the afore dismissal, as withdrawn, of, the apposite complaint, through an order, made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (1) hence upon a motion, qua therewith, being made therebefore, by the writ petitioner, has to be construed, vis-a-vis, the trite factum, (ii) qua, thereafter also whether the writ petitioner holding any enlivened cause of action, for, ensuring, qua the preliminary inquiry, as made by the SHO concerned, upon a reference made to him, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, being legally deficient, and also, rather empowering him, to make a valid endeavor, before the Court that, yet, an FIR, qua therewith, being directed to be lodged, by, the SHO concerned.
(3.)The answer to the afore is purveyed, by, Section 210, of, the Cr. PC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:
210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.-
(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence, which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire 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.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.