Allahabad High Court
Ninua Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 May, 2024
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84904
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14482 of 2024
Applicant :- Ninua Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Srivastava,Priyanka Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to connect and decide both the Criminal Cases bearing Case Crime No. 529 of 2022 (State Vs. Ninua and Others) pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Mathura as well as Case Crime No.530 of 2022 (State Vs. Govind Singh and Others) pending in trial court and expedite the trial collectively as both the cases are cross cases.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is informant of the Case Crime No. 530 of 2022 moved Application on 11.08.2023 that cross case is pending as Case Crime No. 529 of 2022 which is committed to Sessions court and the same is pending before the Sessions Judge, Mathura. Since Case Crime Nos. 529 of 2022 and 530 of 2022 are cross cases, therefore, same should be brought together. The applicant's case is pending since 11.08.2023. He next submits that the Hon. Apex Court in Nathilal Vs. State of U.P. 1990 (supp.) SCC 145 has held that cross cases must be tried together by the trial court.
4. Considered the argument and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that both the FIR lodged by the parties are of the same incident. The Hon. Apex Court in Nathilal (supra) has observed thus:
"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 recording 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 cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other."
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court below to decide the application of the applicant dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5) in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nathilal(supra), as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
6. The application is disposed of with the above observation.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024/Meenu Singh
