- (1.) This Application seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 211 of 2011 (Smt. Siya Singh Vs. Ajai Singh And Others) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gadwar, District Ballia, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Ballia as also to stay all further proceedings of the complaint case aforementioned.
(2.) From the facts disclosed in the Affidavit filed in support of the application it appears that with respect to an incident which took place on 21 May 2009 between the applicants and the family of the Opposite Party No. 2, a first information report was lodged on 26 May 2009 at the behest of the Opposite Party No. 2 which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 131-A of 2009 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Admittedly the police upon investigation has proceeded to submit a charge sheet before the Court concerned in respect of the abovementioned cases on 7 June 2009 and 4 June 2009. On or about 28 May 2009, the Opposite Party No. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer that a first information report be lodged against the applicants with respect to the same incident. This application came to be dismissed by the Magistrate on 31 July 2009. Aggrieved by the above order the Opposite Party No. 2 preferred a criminal revision which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 205 of 2009. The Additional District Judge, Ballia placing reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and High Court took the view that a second first information report with respect to the same incident could not be directed to be registered. Accordingly, the revision came to dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the Opposite Party No. 2 preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18055 of 2011 (Smt. Siya Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Others) which came to be disposed of on 16 September 2011 with an observation that the petitioner therein had an alternative remedy of filing a criminal complaint. The learned Single Judge observed that if a criminal complaint is filed by the petitioner (Opposite Party No. 2), the same shall be considered by the Magistrate concerned uninfluenced by any order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the above direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the Magistrate concerned by an order dated 30 September 2014, has proceeded to take cognizance upon the complaint lodged by the Opposite Party No. 2 and summoned the applicants.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate suffers from the manifest errors of law and would be clearly barred in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala And Others, 2001 6 SCC 181 . Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, who has appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2, has however referred to the provisions of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. to contend that the second complaint is not barred. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court finds that the learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to rest his submissions upon any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the Magistrate is barred from taking cognizance of a complaint in respect of an incident in connection with which a police case may have come to be registered and charge sheet subsequently submitted. The judgment in Antony related to a situation where two first information reports came to be registered in respect of the same incident. The said authority, therefore has no application to the facts of the present case. The causes which stand submitted for further consideration before the Sessions Judge pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the police authorities as also the complaint case which now stands registered and upon which cognizance has been taken would at best be liable to be disposed of bearing in mind the principles laid down in Sudhir And Others Vs. State of M.P, 2001 2 SCC 688 . Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.;