Section 210 CrPC does not stay cheque dishonour complaints when the police case involves distinct offences and ingredients.

Section 210 CrPC does not stay a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint when the pending police case concerns distinct offences with different factual foundations, ingredients, causes of action and objects. The High Court noted that allegations of misappropriation and cheating in the police case were separate from the cheque dishonour proceeding, and the disputed circumstances of cheque execution were matters for trial in the complaint case. Finding no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Magistrate's refusal to call for a police report and stay the complaint, the Court declined interference under Section 482 CrPC and allowed the complaint to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be stayed under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on account of the pending police case; (ii) whether the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 called for interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be stayed under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on account of the pending police case.

Analysis: The two proceedings were found to rest on different factual foundations and different legal ingredients. The police case concerned allegations of misappropriation and related offences under Sections 406, 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while the complaint case arose from dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court held that the nature of offences, cause of action, procedure and objects of the two proceedings were different, and the disputed question relating to the circumstances in which the cheque was signed was a matter for trial in the complaint case. Since the proceedings were not in respect of the same offence, Section 210 was not attracted.

Conclusion: The prayer for stay under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not maintainable and was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 called for interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court found no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the Magistrate. The Magistrate had examined the statutory requirements and correctly concluded that the complaint case and the police case were distinct. The alternative plea to convert the petition into one seeking quashing of the entire proceeding was also declined, as such relief was not available on the facts and could not be entertained in the manner sought.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order refusing to call for a police report and stay the complaint proceedings failed, and the complaint case was permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where the complaint case and the police investigation relate to the same offence, and distinct offences with different ingredients, causes of action and objects do not justify a stay of complaint proceedings or interference in inherent jurisdiction.

---