Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 as well as learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

2. A case has been registered against respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.25/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity). On a complaint filed by the petitioner herein, a First Information Report (FIR) has been submitted to the Court. After completion of the investigation, the Police have filed a charge-sheet against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which is now pending in C.C. No.3308/2014 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devanahalli. It then transpires that arising out of the same incident, respondent No.2 herein had also filed a complaint in respect of which, a case has been registered against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 307, 323, 324 and 506B read with Section 34 of the IPC in Crime No.24/2014 and Police have also completed investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner herein in C.C. No.3503/2014 and on the point of jurisdiction, the case against the petitioner is committed to the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, which is now registered as case No.SC.15002/2015. As per the record in Crime Nos.24/2014 and 25/2014, the offences have taken place on 08.03.2014 between 3 p.m. and 4:45 p.m. and the place of offence is Poojanahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. It is in view of this, the case in crime No.24/2014 and crime No.25/2014 are case and counter case arising out of the same incident and involving the same parties. Therefore, the petitioner is said to have filed a petition under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in Crl.Misc. No.650/2015, which has been dismissed holding that the petitioner has a right to file necessary application before the Magistrate for the same relief that is sought for. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional Magistrate through the Prosecutor and the learned Judge without considering the application, has adjourned the case and therefore, aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.

3. Notwithstanding the refusal of the Sessions Court to entertain the petition or the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking to ignore the application filed by the petitioner, the legal position is no longer res integra in a situation such as this, where there is a case and counter case and one of the cases on account of jurisdiction is before a Sessions Court and the other cross case is before the lower Court, namely, a Magistrate Court, the procedure to be adopted has been the subject matter of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P., ((2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 688). In a similar situation, the Supreme Court having addressed the legal provisions that would be applicable, has observed that 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. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross-cases shall be tried by the same Court, are summarized thus:

“(1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court.

(2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivere