Allahabad High Court
Omkar & 7 Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 2 August, 2017
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 43
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23913 of 2017
Applicant :- Omkar & 7 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 4.7.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 2, Kasganj, in S.T. No. 07 of 2010, State vs. Omkar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Ganjdundwara, District- Kasganj by which the application seeking staying the pronouncement of the judgement in this case till disposal of the another criminal Misc. Case No. 16379 of 2009.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
Submission of the counsel for the applicants is that the trial in which the applicants are accused, has already reached at its culminating stage but the proceedings of cross case, which was in nature of complaint case, in which the other side has been made accused, has been stayed by the orders of the High Court. Further submission is that the present trial of the applicants should be stayed till the other cross case also comes up for trial on the principles that the cross cases should be decided together by the same court.
So far as the trial of the two cross cases is concerned, this is true that ordinarily cross cases should be tried together by the same court but that is not principle of universal application and varies from case to case on various factors and circumstances specially when out of two cases one case is pending and in other case evidences have already been completed. Admittedly, one case in which the applicants are accused, has reached at its culminating stage and the evidences have been recorded but the proceedings of other case have already been stayed by the High Court as it was deemed fit to do so by the competent Bench seized with the jurisdiction, and in such circumstances, it will unnecessary hamper the process of law if the trial of the applicants is allowed to wait for indefinite period of time specially in view of the heavy pendency of the cases where it is not very likely that the matter relating to the complaint case may be decided at any early date. This Court is also not very sure whether the other case is actually in the nature of cross case or not. Looking to the final stage of trial, this Court does not feel inclined to stay the proceedings till disposal of the other case pending before the High Court. It may also be taken note of that the evidence which is produced in the cross-cases cannot be made of any use in other cross-case and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence produced in each of cases separately remaining uninfluenced by the evidence which is produced in the other alleged cross case. The only rationale to justify the decision in the two cases simultaneously is to avoid the possibility of mutually conflicting decisions which may sometimes happen if the court is not aware about the verdict given in the other case. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this particular case the precautionary principle cannot override the other significant considerations of pragmatic judicial prudence and the process of law cannot be stalled simply on the basis of the existence of some alleged cross case and that too where proceedings have been stayed by the High Court. The matter has already reached at the final stage and must be allowed to arrive at its logical end otherwise instead of promoting, it shall frustrate the ends of justice.
The application lacks merit and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.8.2017
Naresh
