Allahabad High Court
Gulab Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42757 of 2022
Applicant :- Gulab Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By moving this application, the prayer is made to quash the impugned order dated 21.7.2022 passed by A.D.J. Court No. 1, Chandauli in S.T.No. 143 of 2019, case crime no. 223 of 2019, under sections 304, 323, 504 I.P.C., police station Ali Nagar, District Chandauli whereby the application of the applicants, that the trial of the complaint case no. 5420 of 2019 being cross case be also decided together, was rejected.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that regarding the incident dated 29.5.2019, the opp. parties lodged an FIR on 30.5.2019 wherein all the three applicants are facing trial. This trial is fixed for defence evidence. Regarding the same incident after four months on 25.9.2019, the applicants filed a complaint against the prosecution side of the above sessions trial. In the same incident Akash and Bharat sustained injuries from the applicants side. The reason for delay in filing the complaint was disclosed that the applicants were behind the bar. As soon as they got released from the jail, the complaint was filed. In the complaint also vide order dated 16.10.2021, persons from the family of the first informant in the FIR were summoned to face trial. On 11.4.2022 Civil Judge (JD) concerned committed the complaint no. 5420 of 2019 of the applicants to the court of Sessions on the ground that the cross case S.T.No. 143 of 2019 was pending before Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chandauli. After receiving the file in the court concerned, the applicants moved an application praying therein that the trial of both cases i.e. the complaint of the applicants and the case crime no. 223 of 2019 (S.T.No. 143 of 2019) of the opp. parties be heard together. This application was rejected on 21.7.2022 on the ground that the application of the same effect had been rejected earlier on 16.5.2022. Vide order dated 16.5.2022 the same court found that as the complaint was filed when the complainant and his family members were chargesheeted in the FIR, hence, the complaint cannot be said to be a cross case. Otherwise also, the court found that in the sessions trial the statements of the applicants/ accused persons had been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The applicants did not produce their evidence and thus the case was still pending at the stage of defence evidence. The court opined that the High Court had issued a direction to dispose of the sessions trial no. 143 of 2019, State Vs. Gulab Singh and others within one year from the date of production of the certified copy of that order and the application of the applicants was rejected.
Against this order dated 21.7.2022 only the applicants have appeared before this court and by placing the judgment of Nathi Lal Vs. State of U.P., 1988 LawSuit (SC) 420, it is argued that as per the facts of the judgment when one case after concluding the evidence was fixed for arguments and cross case of that case was also pending, both cases were ordered to be disposed of together, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by learned counsel for the applicants in compliance of the previous order of this court and the order sheet of the trial court has been placed before this court. As per the ordersheet of the complaint case, the complaint case is fixed for statement under section 244 Cr.P.C. and as per the ordersheet of State case, that case is fixed for arguments.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that incident in both cases is the same. In the FIR subject matter of the present S.T. No. 143 of 2019, it has been mentioned by the first informant that in the same incident Gulab the present applicant was also injured who was admitted in hospital along with the husband of the first informant and it is the case of the present applicant that apart from Gulab Singh, his son Akash and one Bharat were also injured.
Thus, whether the complaint would be called a cross case or not, it is secondary thing but it is admitted fact that the incident in both cases is the same and it is also admitted that in the same incident the husband of the present complainant, Gulab Singh was also injured and the complaint was committed to the court of sessions by the trial court with the version that cross case of the complaint case was pending in trial court and now both, the complaint and the Sessions Trial are pending in the same court. So it is admitted that both, the complaint case and the sessions trial arise out of the same dispute where the persons from both the side are shown to be injured.
In the opinion of the court, the only fact that one case is at the stage of argument and the other is at the stage of charge cannot be a ground to reject the application of the applicants. So far as the order of this court is concerned that sessions trial no. 143 of 2019 be decided within one year such order is always subject to a legal impediment. If two cases regarding same incident of the rival parties are pending before the same court, it is the duty of the trial court to decide the both cases together. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Nathi Lal Vs. State of U.P. (supra).
Thus, the order dated 21.7.2022 is found to be erroneous and is quashed with the direction to the court concerned that both, the Sessions Trial No. 143 of 2019 and complaint case no. 5420 of 2019 be decided together, expeditiously.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, thus, allowed.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
Gss
