# (Ramji v. Sonu

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 262
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-02-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 2975 of 2009
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramji-v-sonu-41356
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 210complaint dismissed by Magistrate on
ground for same occurrence FIR lodgedpolice submitted charge sheet-complaint
for same offence-not maintainable-heldillegal-charge filed for allegation of
murder of his son-without allegation of
rash and negligence-direction issued to
proceed with complaint on merit.

Held: Para 8

In
above
view,
C.J.M.,
Allahabad
committed a manifest error of law in
dismissing the complaint of the applicant
under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for the reason
that the police has submitted the charge
sheet in respect of the same incident.
Happening of the same incident is not
material for applicability of Section 210
Cr.P.C. for conducting a single trial. What
is important is that the offence alleged is
the same. Consequently rejection of
complaint
by
C.J.M.,
Allahabad
by
passing the impugned order is wholly
illegal and cannot be sustained in law.
The charge which was leveled by the
applicant in his complaint were that of
causing murder of his son by repeatedly
crushing him under the vehicle. The said
charge of murder is an independent
charge of causing death but not by rash
and negligence act.

## Text

262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
there can be no relaxation. The judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for
respondent no.1 whereby the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that every infraction
of the rule relating to submission of proof
need not necessarily result in rejection of
candidature. The said case is clearly
distinguishable in the facts of the present
case and does not help the respondent
no.1.

23. Respondent no.1 being not
possessed of the minimum eligible
qualification prescribed, the denial of
admission to him by the University is
justified. No principle of promissory
estoppel can be pressed by the respondent
no.1 in support of his admission.

24. Therefore, the judgment and
order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated
11th November, 2008 cannot be legally
sustained and is hereby set aside,:

25. The present special appeal is
allowed. The writ petition filed by
respondent no.1 is dismissed. No order is
passed as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2975 of
2009

Ramji Shukla

...Applicant

Versus
State of U.P. and another

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Beni Madhav Pandey
Sri K.K. Mishra
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 210complaint dismissed by Magistrate on
ground for same occurrence FIR lodgedpolice submitted charge sheet-complaint
for same offence-not maintainable-heldillegal-charge filed for allegation of
murder of his son-without allegation of
rash and negligence-direction issued to
proceed with complaint on merit.

Held: Para 8

In
above
view,
C.J.M.,
Allahabad
committed a manifest error of law in
dismissing the complaint of the applicant
under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for the reason
that the police has submitted the charge
sheet in respect of the same incident.
Happening of the same incident is not
material for applicability of Section 210
Cr.P.C. for conducting a single trial. What
is important is that the offence alleged is
the same. Consequently rejection of
complaint
by
C.J.M.,
Allahabad
by
passing the impugned order is wholly
illegal and cannot be sustained in law.
The charge which was leveled by the
applicant in his complaint were that of
causing murder of his son by repeatedly
crushing him under the vehicle. The said
charge of murder is an independent
charge of causing death but not by rash
and negligence act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned A.G.A.

2. The applicant complainant Ramji
Shukla has approached this Court with the
prayer to quash the impugned order dated
3.10.2008 passed by C,J.M., Allahabad in
complaint case no. 23676/2008 (Ramji
Vs. Sonu Agrawal), under Sections 279,
304-A, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Naini, District
Allahabad.
1 All] Ramji Shukla V. State of U.P. and another
263
3. A perusal of the complaint
instituted by the applicant, vide annexure
No. 1 to this application, before C,J.M.,
Allahabad, registered as complaint Case
NO.
23676/2008
(Ramji
Vs.
Sonu
Agrawal), indicates that the allegations
leveled were that of causing murder of
son of applicant Shivanshu aged about 16
years by crushing him under vehicle no.
UP 70 AV 2700.

4. It transpires that when the
complaint was filed on 14.8.2008, C.J.M.,
Allahabad was apprise of the fact that in
respect .pf the said incident, a FIR vide
crime no. 371 of 2008, under sections
279, 304 A, 427 I.P.C. was already
registered which is pending investigation.
C.J.M., Allahabad, therefore, stopped the
proceedings of the complaint case and
called for a report from the police who
reported that crime was investigated and a
charge sheet had already been submitted
against the accused persons on 20.7.2008
for offences mentioned.

5. After receiving the police report
in respect of filing of charge sheet,
C.J.M.,
Allahabad
dismissed
the
complaint of the applicant under Section
203 Cr.P.C. for the reason that the police
has submitted the charge sheet in the
above noted offences of causing death by
rash and negligence act punishable under
Sections 304, 379, 427 I.P.C.

6. The controversy involved in this
case revolves around the applicability of
Section
210
Cr.P.C.
For
a
clear
understanding Section 210 Cr.P.C. is
reproduced herein below:

"(1) When in a case instituted
otherwise than on a police report
(hereinafter referred to as a complaint
case), it is made to appear to the
Magistrate, during the course of the
inquiry or trial held by him, 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.
(2) If a report is made by the
investigating police officer under section
173 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 police
report as if both the cases were instituted
on a police report.
(3) 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 this
Code."

7. Above phraseology of Section
210 Cr.P.C. indicate that what is sine quo
non for applicability of the said Section is
commission of the same offence. If the
offence is different, then Section 210
Cr.P.C. does not have any application at
all for clubbing the prosecution. This
aspect is clear from conjoint reading of
Sections 210 (1) and 210 (3) Cr.P.C.

8. In above view, C.J.M., Allahabad
committed a manifest error of law in
dismissing the complaint of the applicant
under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for the reason
that the police has submitted the charge
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
sheet in respect of the same incident.
Happening of the same incident is not
material for applicability of Section 210
Cr.P.C. for conducting a single trial. What
is important is that the offence alleged is
the same. Consequently rejection of
complaint by C.J.M., Allahabad by
passing the impugned order is wholly
illegal and cannot be sustained in law.
The charge which was leveled by the
applicant in his complaint were that of
causing murder of his son by repeatedly
crushing him under the vehicle. The said
charge of murder is an independent
charge of causing death but not by rash
and negligence act.

9. In view of what I have observed
above,
the
impugned
order
dated
3.10.2008 passed by C.J.M., Allahabad
cannot be sustained at all and is hereby set
aside. C.J.M., Allahabad cannot be
sustained at all and is hereby set aside.
C.J.M., Allahabad is directed to proceed
with the complaint case instituted by the
applicant in accordance with law as the
charge
sheet
submitted
against
the
accused persons by the police is in respect
of different offences all together.

With the aforesaid directions, this
application is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14225 of 2003

Shahid Ahmad Khan

...Petitioner

Versus
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner,
Agra
Region, Agra and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Biushra Maryan
Sri K.P. Agarwal
Suman Sirohi
Sumati Rani Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dhruva Narayan
S.C.

Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section 10
(1)-petitioner
working
as
sales
representative in Pvt. Company after
termination approached before Labour
Commissioner-who refused to refer the
dispute as petitioner is not for work
man-held-it is for the court or Tribunal
and to conciliation officer who works as
representative of Govt.-who exceeded to
jurisdiction-order can not be sustained.
Held: Para 9 & 10

In a similar matter in TELCO Convoy
Drivers Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. Vs. State
of Bihar & Ors., 1989 (3) SCC 271, the
Supreme Court held that the dispute, as
to whether the persons raising the
dispute, are the workmen or not, the
same could not be decided by the
Government
in
exercise
of
its
administrative function under Section 10
(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
said judgment is squarely applicable to
the present facts and circumstances of
the case.

The Court is of the opinion that the State
Government exceeded its jurisdiction
and has attempted to usurp the power of
the Tribunal by adjudicating a dispute
which power was not vested with the
government.
Case law discussed:
1985 (51) FLR 71, 2002 (4) SCC 490, 2005 (2)
UPLBEC 1181, 1970 (20) FLR 297, 1953 SCR
834, 1978 (36) FLR 195, 1989 (3) SCC 271

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Bushra Maryan, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri