Delhi High Court
Vipul Kumar vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 December, 2019
#R-46 to 48A
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R-46
+ CRL.A. 171/2019
VIPUL KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Pradeep Rana with Mr. Sumit
Chaudhary, Mr. Kanwar Kochar,
Mr. Anushasit Arya, Ms. Akansha
Bansal and Mr. Abhishek Rana,
Advocates
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP with
Insp. Pramod Joshi, SHO/Gokul Puri
for State.
WITH
R-47
+ CRL.A. 380/2019
RAM KHILADI ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
(DHCLSC)
versus
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP with
Insp. Pramod Joshi, SHO/Gokul Puri
for R-1/State.
Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate for R-2
and 3.
CRL. A. No.171/2019 & Ors. Page 1 of 5
AND
R-48
+ CRL.A. 671/2019
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP with
Insp. Pramod Joshi, SHO/Gokul Puri
for State.
versus
KUMAR PAL & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate for
respondents
AND
R-48A
+ CRL.A. 1400/2019
VIPUL KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Pradeep Rana with Mr. Sumit
Chaudhary, Mr. Kanwar Kochar,
Mr. Anushasit Arya, Ms. Akansha
Bansal and Mr. Abhishek Rana,
Advocates
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP with
Insp. Pramod Joshi, SHO/Gokul Puri
for R-1/State.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
(DHCLSC) for R-2 to R-6.
% Date of Decision: 11th December, 2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
CRL. A. No.171/2019 & Ors. Page 2 of 5
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
CRL.A. 380/2019
Admit.
CRL.As. 171/2019, 380/2019, 671/2019, 1400/2019
1. While Criminal Appeal No. 1400/2019 has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 30th November, 2017 passed in Sessions Case No.
104/2012 in FIR No. 101/2004 registered with PS Gokul Puri, Criminal
Appeal Nos. 171/2019, 380/2019 and 671/2019 have been filed challenging
the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2018 passed in Sessions Case
No. 44265/2015 in FIR No. 15/2003 registered with PS Gokul Puri.
2. The admitted position is that FIR Nos. 15/2003 and 101/2004 are
cross FIRs relating to the same incident that took place between the parties
on 12th January, 2003.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 171/2019
and 1400/2019 points out that though the cross-FIRs were registered with
regard to the same incident, yet the cases were decided by the trial court
after a gap of more than one year from each other. He submits that the trial
court failed to appreciate that the arguments in cross-FIRs had to be heard
simultaneously and it could not have passed the judgment in one case only
and postponed the judgment in the other case by more than a year. He states
that the trial court should have reserved the judgments in the first case till
the arguments in the other case had concluded. In support of his submission,
he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nathi Lal and Others
Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 1990 (Supp) SCC 145.
4. It is settled law that in cases of cross-FIRs each case must be decided
on the basis of the evidence which had 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 the judgments in both the cases have
to be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other. The
Supreme Court in Nathi Lal and Others (supra) in order to avoid conflicting
decisions with regard to the same incident has given its approval to the
following procedure to be followed by the trial court:-
"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 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. Since in the present cases, the cross-cases have been decided after a
gap of more than one year, this Court is of the view that the procedure laid
down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has not been followed.
6. Consequently, the impugned judgments dated 30th November, 2017
passed in Sessions Case No. 104/2012 and dated 22nd December, 2018
passed in Sessions Case No. 44265/2015 are set aside and the matters are
remanded back to the trial court for determination afresh in accordance with
law and the ratio laid down in Nathi Lal and Others (supra) within a period
of six months.
7. It is clarified that the rights and contentions of all the parties are left
open.
8. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to assign the present cases to any
criminal court other than the court of Mr. Raghubir Singh, Addl. Sessions
Judge-02 (North-East) who had passed the impugned judgments.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 8 th January,
2020. Registry is directed to send back the trial court record forthwith.
10. Consequently, present appeals stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 11, 2019
rn
