Tripura High Court
Revision vs The State Of Tripura on 1 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.REV.P.No.28 OF 2024
Lal Bhanu
W/O: Hannan Miah
Of: North Durganagar,
P.S.-Khowai
Dist. Knowai, Tripura
----Revision Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
---- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. P. Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
Date of Hearing
& delivery of : 01.05.2024
Judgment and Order
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order(Oral)
Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for
the petitioner and also heard Mr. Raju Datta, Learned P.P.
representing the State-respondent. The petitioner has
preferred this revision petition under Section 397, read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated
04.03.2024 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Khowai, Tripura, in connection with case No. S.T.(T-1) 14 of
2021. By the said order, Learned Court below rejected the
prayer of the petitioner for simultaneous trial of both the
cases as prayed for.
02. In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the present petitioner and others is
the accused of the aforesaid case bearing No.S.T.(T-1) 14 of
2021 which was registered on the basis of an FIR laid by one
Mahim Debnath, son of late Jamini Debnath, Durganagar,
P.S. Khowai, District Khowai. The allegation in the FIR was
that on 12.02.2020 in the night to his adjacent neighbouring
house Hannan Miah, some persons from Bangladesh
assembled and on hearing their loud voice, to see the
matter, his son Ganesh Debnath and another neighbourer
Suman Nath Sharma when proceeded to the residence of
Hannan Miah, that time the accused persons as stated in the
FIR, armed with deadly weapons like dao, chased his son
and his friend and after that the accused persons infront of
the residence of one Joydeb Roy at Uttar Durganagar, nearby
Mosque, struck four times dao blow on the head, and also on
the back, left hand and left leg and caused bleeding injury to
him and they also assaulted and attacked Suman Nath
Sharma for which he sustained stitch injury. Immediately,
after the incident, his son and friend were shifted to Kulai
Hospital by the neighbouring persons and considering their
acute condition, they were referred to GBP Hospital, Agartala
where they were struggling for surviving. It was further
stated in the FIR that the accused persons were involved in
smuggling and for that they have caused harm to his son
and his friend. Hence, he laid the FIR. Accordingly, O.C.,
Khowai P.S. on 13.02.2020 at about 1605 hours registered
Khowai P.S. case No.2020/KHW/033 under Section
326/307/34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the
I.O. laid charge-sheet against the present revision petitioner
and others and on commitment the case is now pending
before the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Khowai. Similarly, on 11.03.2020 the present petitioner laid
an FIR to O.C. Khowai P.S. alleging inter alia that on
12.02.2020 in the night at about 10.30 P.M. Ganesh
Debnath, Suman Nath Sharma, Prabir deb, Sourav Kanti
Paul, Saraj Chandra Deb and Prantosh Roy armed with dao,
spear, stick entered into her house, caught hold her and
dragged her outside the room and outraged her modesty, for
which she was compelled to take shelter to a nearby place.
After that police came and she laid the FIR on 13.02.2020
but no case was registered by police and thereafter, on
11.03.2020, O.C., Khowai P.S. registered KHW PS case
No.49 of 2020 under Section 448/323/354/379/427/34 of
IPC and laid charge-sheet against said Ganesh Debnath and
others and the case is presently pending before the Court of
Learned J.M. 1st Class, Khowai for evidence. Learned Counsel
further submitted that both the cases arose out of the same
incident and time, so, both the cases should be heard and
tried by same Court at the same time and shall dispose of by
a common judgment. But the Learned Court below did not
consider the same and passed an erroneous order.
03. Per contra, Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta,
representing the State-respondent referring the documents
annexed with the petition, submitted that the petition is not
at all maintainable because the subject matter of both the
cases are different (cause of action, time etc.), so, this Court
by exercising the power of revision cannot grant any relief to
the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
04. I have heard both the sides and perused the order
dated 1403.2024 passed by Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Khowai in connection with case No. S.T.(T-1) 14 of
2021. It appears that another alleged connected case
bearing No.PRC(WP) 121 of 2020 is now pending before the
Court of Learned J.M. 1st Class, Khowai and case is at the
stage of recording of evidence. Learned Court below after
hearing both the sides came to the observation that the
place of occurrence of both the cases were different and
there was a time gap of thirty minutes between both the
cases as mentioned in the ejahar, so, Learned Court below
came to the observation that both the cases cannot be said
to be case and counter case and there is no ground to club
both the cases together and to proceed for holding of
analogous trial and thus rejected the prayer.
05. On perusal of the FIR of both the cases, it appears
that although the alleged incident took place on the same
date but there was a time gap of thirty minutes and the
place of occurrence of both the cases are totally different and
also in different places.
06. So, as alleged by the Learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the subject matter of both the cases cannot be
said to same and arises out of the same incident and cannot
be said to be case and counter case. In Cr.P.C. there is no
any specific definition for "counter case" but from the
conventional practice, it is the settled position that if the
parties are same and the case and counter case are arising
out of the same incident and the same time then it can be
treated as counter case and for the sake proper
administration of justice, it is always suggested that both the
cases should be heard and tried at the same time and be
disposed at the same time either by a common judgment or
by two different judgments.
07. In Sudhir and Others vs. State of M.P. dated
02.02.2001 reported in (2001) 2 SCC 688, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in para No.8 observed as under:
"It is a salutary practice, when two criminal
cases relate to the same incident, they are
tried and disposed of by the same court by
pronouncing judgments on the same day.
Such two different versions of the same
incident resulting in two criminal cases are
compendiously called "case and counter case"
by some High Courts and "cross cases" by
some other High Courts. Way back in the
nineteen hundred and twenties a Division
Bench of the Madras High Court (Waller and
Cornish, JJ) made a suggestion (Goriparthi
Krishtamma, In re- 1929 MWN 881 that "a
case and counter-case arising out of the same
affair should always, if practicable, be tried by
the same court; and each party would
represent themselves as having been the
innocent victims of the aggression of the
other."
Perused the same.
08. But here in this case, after going through the
relevant records, it appears to me that the petitioner has
failed to satisfy the Court that there is need for holding
analogous trial of this present case along with PRC (WP) 121
of 2020 which is now pending before the Court of Learned
J.M. 1st Class, Khowai. So, I do not find any scope to
entertain the petition filed by the revision petitioner and the
same is not maintainable.
08. In the result, the petition filed by the petitioner is
hereby not maintainable and accordingly, stands rejected
being devoid of merit. However, after hearing both the sides,
it is ordered that both the Courts below shall make all
endeavour to dispose of the cases within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of this copy of this
order/judgment. With this observation, the case is disposed
of on contest.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
SABYASACHI SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJEE
BHATTACHARJEE Date: 2024.05.03 16:13:07
+05'30'
Purnita
