Allahabad High Court
Charan Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 538 of 2010
Applicant :- Charan Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dinesh Tiwari
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri R.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1 and Shri Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
2. Filtering out unnecessary detail, basic facts of this case in brief are that in this case both side have lodged FIR against each other. Case Crime No.448 of 2008 was lodged by opposite party No.2-Keram Singh against Charan Singh-applicant under Section 457 IPC at P.S.-Achhenara, District-Agra, in which charge-sheet has been submitted on 23.9.2008 against Charan Singh-applicant. The said charge-sheet dated 23.9.2008 under Section 457 IPC and proceeding of Case No.1786 of 2008 have been challenged by the applicant-Charan Singh in this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A cross-case was also lodged by Smt. Vimlesh (wife of Charan Singh/applicant) against the opposite party No.2 and others, registered as Case Crime No.448A of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 308 & 506 IPC at P.S.-Achhanera, District-Agra, in which final report dated 23.9.2008 was submitted by Investigating Officer in favour of the opposite party No.2 and others, but the said final report was rejected by the Magistrate concerned by the impugned order dated 25.6.2009 and opposite party No.2 and other co-accused were summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 504 & 506 IPC.
3. The said order dated 25.6.2009 and proceeding of Case No.1036 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No.448A of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S.-Achhanera, District Agra, pending in the court of XIII-ACJM, Agra, were challenged by the opposite party No.2 along with other co-accused in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.24205 of 2009, which has been disposed of today.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant after advancing his arguments at some length, gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned criminal proceedings against the applicant and submitted that the applicant is already on bail. Since both the aforesaid cases arising out of Case Crime No.448 of 2008 and Case Crime No.448A of 20008 are cross-case to each other and the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.24205 of 2009, filed by opposite party No.2, has been disposed of, therefore, this application may also be disposed of with the direction to the concerned court below to proceed with the trial against all accused persons of both the cases together being a cross-case.
5. After having heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is also of the view that since both the cases arising out of Case Crime No.448 of 2008 and Case Crime No.448A of 2008 are cross-case to each other, therefore, contention of learned counsel for the applicant, in this regard, is liable to be accepted in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nathi Lal and others vs. State of U.P. and another, 1990 (Supp) SCC 145, which is as follows:
"2.We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recoding of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the corss case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other."
6. In view of above, the relief, as claimed by the applicant in the instant application, is hereby refused.
7. The application is disposed of with the direction to the concerned court below to proceed with the Criminal Case No.1786 of 2008 under Section 457 IPC, P.S.-Achhanera, District-Agra along with Case Crime No.1036 of 2009, in accordance with law.
8. With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
LN Tripathi
