Ved Pal Alias Vikram S/O Sh. Om ... vs State, Nct Delhi
2007 Latest Caselaw 1934 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Gupta, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 read with Section 223 CrPC for setting aside the orders dated 17th August, 2007 and 25th September, 2007, passed by the learned trial court with the prayer that the trial court be directed to try the case of present petitioners Along with the case of co-accused Sohannvir Singh jointly.

2. Initially the charge sheet against the present petitioners was filed under Section 302/201/34 IPC and co-accused Sohanvir Singh was shown as an accused in column no.2 and was not sent up for the trial.

3. On 8th September, 2004 when the case was fixed for recording of defense evidence, learned APP pointed out that c-accused Sohanvir Singh despite his being named in the FIR has not been summoned. After hearing the learned PP and perusing the record, the learned ASJ summoned co-accused Sohanvir Singh under Section 319 CrPC.

4. Thereafter the charges were framed against co-accused Sohanvir Singh and evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded.

5. On 17th August, 2007, it was pointed out by learned APP as well as learned defense counsel that the supplementary challan has been filed against accused Sohanvir Singh and he was P.O. earlier. All other accused were facing trial which was completed. It was contended by learned Counsel that it will not be proper to keep the case of other accused pending till the evidence against Sohanvir Singh is recorded and learned Counsel requested to decide the case of accused persons except Sohanvir Singh. The trial court found weight in the submissions of the learned Counsel and ordered that case file of accused Sohanvir Singh be separated from the present petitioners and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 21st September, 2007 for final arguments qua all the accused except accused Sohanvir Singh and qua accused Sohanvir Singh the matter was adjourned for prosecution evidence.

6. On 21st September, 2007, adjournment was sought by learned Counsel and the matter was adjourned to 24th September, 2007 and on that day also adjournment was sought on behalf of the learned Counsel for the accused stating that the main counsel has not come and the matter was again adjourned to 1.00 p.m. Thereafter at 1.25 p.m. since the main defense counsel was not present, adjournment was sought, but the request was declined and the matter was fixed for orders for 29th September, 2007 and defense counsel was given liberty to file written submissions one day prior to the date of order. Thereafter an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner Ved Pal contending that in view of Section 223 CrPC, a joint trial of all the accused including Sohanvir Singh be conducted.

7. After hearing the learned Counsel, the trial court dismissed that application, holding that the trial against the applicants had already been concluded when co-accused Sohanvir Singh was ordered to be summoned as an accused. In such circumstances, there is no question of framing charge together or of joint trial.

8. Aggrieved against the order dated 17th August, 2007 and 25th September, 2007, the present petition has been filed.

9. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as per Section 223 of CrPC there should be joint trial of all the accused persons and the trial court, without assigning any cogent reasons, has separated the present petitioners from that of the co-accused Sohanvir singh on 17th August, 2007 and the judicial propriety demands that accused persons involved for the same offence shall receive the judgment from the trial court jointly, otherwise, it will lead to miscarriage of justice, if the trial court segregates the trials of the accused persons and deal with them separately by pronouncing different judgments. In support of its contention, the learned Counsel has cited decision of the Apex Court reported as The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and Anr. and Tella Zedson v. Chaganti Kista Rao and Ors. 1991(1) 54 Crimes.

10. The trial court record has been summoned and perused. This plea of the petitioner that trial court without assigning any cogent reason has separated the trial of the present petitioners from that of co-accused Sohanvir Singh on 17th August, 2007 is patently wrong, mischievous and against the record. As per order dated 17th August, 2007, it was the learned Counsel for the accused who pointed out that it will not be proper to keep the case of the other accused(i.e. present petitioners) pending till the evidence against the accused Sohanvir Singh is recorded. The learned Counsel himself requested for deciding the case of the present petitioners, except Sohanvir Singh. The learned trial court in its order has mentioned that he find weight in the submissions of the learned Counsel and thereafter ordered that file of accused Sohanvir Singh be separated.

11. Now when at the asking of the petitioners their case has been separated from co-accused Sohanvir Singh, the petitioners had come before this Court, challenging that very order dated 17th August, 2007 which was passed at the instance of the petitioners themselves. So, the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the matter was fixed for final arguments, when petitioners have filed the present petition, just to delay the proceedings of the case.

12. It is well settled that under Section 223 CrPC, it is within the discretion of the court to permit a joint trial or not. Here, admittedly, the case of the present petitioners has come to an end whereas, the trial against accused Sohanvir Singh is still pending and at the request of the present petitioners themselves, the trial court has separated their cases from that of Sohanvir Singh to expedite the matter. Now it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to challenge that very order for which consent has been given by the petitioners.

13. Under these circumstances, the present petition is most bogus and frivolous one and has been filed just to delay the proceedings and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and as such is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

14. The petitioners are directed to deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- with the trial court within a month from today, failing which the trial court shall recover the same in accordance with law.

15. Trial court record be sent back forthwith and accordingly the petition stands disposed of.