Deepika @ Aaina And ANR v. State Of Punjab

"Babita vs State of Punjab and another", 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 516 once a complaint filed by the informant, which is based on the same facts and allegations on which the first information report was registered, is being proceeded with, it was not open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed under Section 211 Indian Penal Code unless there hs been proper compliance with the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Code It was further held that though the offence under Section 182 Indian Penal Code was distinct from the one under Section 211 Indian Penal Code, the latter was more serious and may include the offence under the former Section.

The Magistrate could take cognizance of anif proceedings under Section 182 Indian Penal Code could continue, where the offence disclosed was covered by Section 211 Indian Penal Code and a complaint was pending which had been filed by the informant on the same facts and allegations as were contained in his First Information Report. Similarly, on a parity of reasoning with regard to the offence under Section 211 Indian Penal Code, no cognizance could be taken by the Magistrate for the alleged offence under Section 193 Indian Penal Code, which was one of the Sections mentioned in Section 195(1) (b) Criminal Procedure Code.

8. It is, thus, clear that if the case under Section 182 Indian Penal Code is allowed to proceed, a decision in the said case would tantamount to pre-judging the complaint filed by the petitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182 Indian Penal Code during the pendency of his complaint on the same facts and allegations as mentioned in the FIR, would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

9. Resultantly, this petition succeeds. Calendra dated 8.5.2005 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof and pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana are hereby quashed.

Petition allowed."