1. The petitioner, who is accused No. 4 in ICC Case No. 64 of 2003 on the file of the J.M.F.C, Jaleswar has challenged the order dated 23-4-2004 passed by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid complaint case. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for staying the further proceedings of the said complaint case.

2. The fact of the case, in short, is that opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint case bearing ICC Case No. 64 of 2003 in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C Jaleswar arraigning the petitioner and opposite parties 2 to 6 as accused persons. After enquiry, the learned J.M.F.C took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506/354, I.P.C The petitioner-accused No. 4 filed a petition before the learned Magistrate under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stay the further proceedings of the complaint case on the ground that investigation is pending before the police authorities for the self-same incident under the direction of the National Human Rights Commission. After hearing the parties on the said petition, the learned J.M.F.C by the impugned order dated 23-4-2004 rejected the prayer holding that in absence of registration of any G.R Case by the police, mere calling for a report by the National Human Rights Commission is not well enough to attract the provisions of Section 210 of the Cr. P.C Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in essence, is that, since the case has been registered by the Human Rights Commission and the Commission have called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Balasore on the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the occurrence dated 4-5-2003 and the police authorities are to submit a report after due enquiry, it can be legally presumed that the investigation by the police into the same matter is pending. He relies on Sections 14 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 and learned Addl. Standing Counsel repudiating the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the direction of the Human Rights Commission to the police to submit a report on a particular incident does not legally amount to investigation and in such a situation, the provisions of Section 210, Cr. P.C would not be attracted.

5. From the submissions of the respective parties, the only point, which emerges for examination and determination is, whether the direction of the National Human Rights Commission to the Superintendent of Police, Balasore to submit a report amounts to investigation in a police case.

6. Section 14 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) reads as follows:

“14. Investigation- (1) The Commission may, for the purpose of conducting any investigation pertaining to the inquiry, utilize the services of any officer or investigation agency of the Central Government or any State Government with the concurrence of the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be.

(2) For the purpose of investigating into any matter pertaining to the inquiry, any officer or agency whose services are utilized under sub-section (1) may, subject to the direction and control of the Commission,—

(a) summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him.

(b) require the discovery and production of any document; and

(c) requisition any public record or copy thereof from any office.

(3) The provisions of Section 15 shall apply in relation to any statement made by a person before any officer or agency whose services are utilized under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to any statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission.

(4) The officer or agency whose services are utilized under sub-section (1) shall investigate into any matter pertaining to the enquiry and submit a report thereon to the Commission within such period as may be specified by the Commission in this behalf.

(5) The Commission shall satisfy itself about the correctness of the facts stated and the conclusion, if any arrived at in the report submitted to it under sub-section (4) and for this purpose the Commission may take such inquiry (including the examination of the person or persons who conducted or assisted in the investigation) as it thinks fit.”

7. Section 15 of the said Act speaks about the statement made by a person to the Commission. Section 18 deals with the steps to be taken by the Human Rights Commission after inquiry. It says that the Commission may take any of the following steps upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:—

(1) where the inquiry discloses, the Com mission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of hu man rights by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority the initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other action as the Com mission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;

(2) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as the Court may deem necessary;

(3) recommend to the concerned Government or authority for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;

(4) subject to the provisions of clause (5) provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petition or his representative;

(5) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission;

(6) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission.”

8. A cumulative reading of Sections 14 and 18 of the Human Rights Act would indicate that after completion of inquiry and submission of the report, if the Commission finds violation of any human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant, it may recommend the concerned Government or authorities for initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other acts as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons or approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions as may be necessary. No where the Act contemplates that the report called for by the Human Rights Commission would amount to police investigation or the report submitted to it would amount to a charge-sheet.

9. “Investigation” has been defined in sub-sec. (h) of Sec. 2 of the Code of Criminal procedure. According to this definition, ‘investigation’ includes all the proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence as conducted by a Police Officer or by any per son (other than a Magistrate), who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. So investigation is a systematic minute and thorough attempt to learn the facts about something complex or hidden; it is often for mal and official. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure ‘investigation’ consists of the following steps : (1) proceeding to the spot; (ii) ascertainment of the facts and circum stances of the case; (ill) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender; (iv) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of the ex amination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their state ment into writing, if the officer thinks fit; search of places and seizure of things con sidered necessary for investigation and for production at the trial; and (v) formation of the opinion as to whether on the materials collected there is a case to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial and, if so, taking necessary steps for the same by filing a charge sheet u/S. 173, Cr. P.C Thus, the purpose of investigation is to find out whether materials exist to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial. In the process of an enquiry into some allegations, the Human Rights Commission may call for re port of a Police Officer in connection with an incident, and the Police Officer concerned may probe into the incident for submission of the report to the Human Rights Commission. Such probe does not entail submission of any report under Section 173 of the Code or forwarding the accused before a Magistrate for trial. Therefore, the enquiry into the incident conducted by a Police Of ficer for submitting a report to the Human Rights Commission does not amount to an investigation as contemplated under Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:

“210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. (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 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.”

11. From the aforesaid provision of Section 210, Cr.P.C it is clear that if a Magistrate finds during the course of inquiry or trial held by him that the investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence, which is the subject matter of inquiry or trial held by him, he shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting investigation. Mere calling for a report by the Human Rights Commission from Superintendent of Police, Balasore does not amount to any investigation by the police, and so the present situation did not come within the provisions of Section 210, Cr. P.C Moreover, admittedly the complaint case relates to two incidents; which took place on 16-4-2003 and 4-5-2003. But the Human Rights Commission has called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Balasore regarding the occurrence on 4-5-2003. In aforementioned situation, there was no scope for the learned J.M.F.C Jaleswar to stay the proceeding of the complaint case filed by opposite party No. 1.

12. In view of the circumstances noted above, I find no prima facie merit in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed.

13. Revision dismissed.