Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010010412025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./101/2025 JAY PRAKASH BERNEWAL S/O LT. KESHAB PRASAD GUPTA R/O MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON,ASSAM PIN-782126 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MD.SURHAB ALI S/O LT. TURAB ALI VILL-ULUBARI P.O. ANDP.S. MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS F INTAZ,MS. A BEGUM,MR M H CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B DUTTA (R-2),MR. U DUTTA(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR Page No.# 2/4 ORDER Date : 28.08.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding in CR Case No.67/2024 under Sections 354(B), 323, 340, 294, 448, 34 IPC, pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Morigaon. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No.2 herein on 15.01.2023 at Moirabari Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that on 14.10.2023, the petitioner, along with six other named accused, had entered into the shop and assaulted the informant and his other family members. 4. The said FIR was registered as Moirabari P.S. Case No.11/2023 under Sections 447/427/379/325/506/34 IPC. 5. The charge-sheet, being C.S. No.22/2023 dated 28.02.2023, was submitted, which gave rise to PRC Case No.305/2023 under Sections 447/352/506/34 IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thereafter the opposite party No.2 filed a complaint case, which was registered as CR Case No.69/2023. The said complaint petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.01.2024. 7. Subsequently, another CR Case No.67/2024 has been initiated by the opposite party No.2, which is presently pending. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two parallel Page No.# 3/4 proceedings arising out of the same set of incidents ought not to be allowed to proceed. He has accordingly prayed for quashing of the present proceeding. 9. Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that, in terms of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate is required to conduct an inquiry and may, in appropriate circumstances, direct that the complaint case and the case arising out of the FIR be tried together, if both the cases arise out of the same set of facts. He has accordingly submitted that quashing of the proceeding is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and that the matter may be remanded to the learned trial Court for taking an appropriate decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. 10. This Court has noticed that in the case of Kapil Agarwal –vs- Sanjay Sharma reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524 it has been quoted as under:- “Thus, as per Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate 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. It also provides that if a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 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. It also further provides that 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 Cr.P.C” 11. Further in the case of Pal –vs- State of U.P. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 123, it has been held as under:- “Although it will appear from the above that under Section 210 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate may try the two cases arising out of a police report and a private complaint together, the same, in our view, contemplates a situation where having taken cognizance of an offence in respect of an accused in a complaint case, in a separate police investigation such a person is again made an accused, then the Magistrate may 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.” Page No.# 4/4 12. Accordingly, the present petition is closed allowing the petitioner to liberty to approach the trial Court with an appropriate application praying for exercise of power under Section 210 Cr.P.C. by the learned trial Court and come to a just finding. JUDGE Comparing Assistant