SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:-G.B. Pattanaik and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2003, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1553 of 2000. D/d. 3.11.2000.

R.K. Khanna - Appellant

Versus

State and others - Respondents

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 210(1) and (3) and 482 - Complaint case and police case - A complaint filed under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and at that stage an FIR also registered - Police investigated into the allegations made in the FIR - Magistrate, in the complaint case took cognizance on finding that there are sufficient reasons to proceed against accused persons under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and directed issuance of summons - In FIR case the police filed the final form under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the complainant appeared before the Magistrate and also protested - High Court quashing the complainant case merely because the Magistrate had not exercised his powers by staying the complaint case under Section 210(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Impugned order of the High Court set aside.

[Paras 3, 4 and 5]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - Leave granted.

2. The complainant is in appeal against the impugned order of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. By the impugned order the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has quashed the complaint proceeding, the same being Complaint Case No. 150 of 1990.

3. It appears from the records of this case that a complaint had been filed under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on 24-4-1990 and at that stage an FIR had also been registered with the SHO and the police was investigating into the allegations made in the FIR. The Magistrate, however, in the complaint case took cognisance by order dated 21-3-1991 on a finding that there are sufficient reasons to proceed against the two accused persons under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and directed issuance of summons. Against the said order of issuance of summons, the accused moved the revisional court and having been unsuccessful therein, moved the High Court for quashing of the complaint proceeding. In the police case which started on the basis of the FIR given, the police ultimately filed the final form under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the complainant appeared before the Magistrate and also protested.

4. The High Court in the impugned judgment being of the opinion that the Magistrate not having exercised his powers under sub-section (1) of Section 210 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and not staying the complaint proceeding, has committed serious error and, therefore, the complaint proceeding should be quashed.

5. Having examined the provisions of Section 210 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 more particularly sub-section (3) of Section 210, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court committed serious error in exercising its power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in quashing the complaint case merely because the Magistrate had not exercised his powers by staying the complaint case under sub-section (1) of Section 210 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the complaint case be proceeded with.

6. This appeal stands allowed accordingly.

Appeal allowed.