The main legal point established is that under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C., simultaneous trial of cases by the same judge is permissible if the cases are ready for trial and relate to one common fact.

( 1 ) NONE for opposite party Nos. 1 to 9.

( 2 ) BY this application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. challenge is made to the order dated 30. 8. 2006 parsed by learned Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Arambagh, Hooghly in S. T. Case mo. 25 (6) of 2005 whereby the learned Judge rejected prayer of the petitioner herein for simultaneous trial of Sessions Case No. 25 (6) of 2005 (State v. Srabani Chattoraj and Ors.) with G. R. Caseno. 104 of 2002.

( 3 ) THE facts are that the husband of the present petitioner Srabani chattoraj committed suicide in his own house on 20. 8. 02. Alleging that the petitioner wife subjected to her husband to cruelty and torture and as a result of which the husband was compelled to commit suicide, the opposite parties who are members of the family of the deceased lodged a criminal case under Section 306 I. P. C. against the wife-petitioner and that case is pending for trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions judge.

( 4 ) THE wife-petitioner lodged a complaint, on the other hand against his father in law, mother in law and other in laws alleging that it was on account of torture committed by the opposite parties on her husband that he was compelled to commit suicide The said case was registered under Section 498a of I. P. C, and is pending for trial in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly.

( 5 ) THUS, one case is stated to, be he counter to the other. The petitioner wife filed a petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for simultaneous trial of the Sessions Case against her with the trial of the case under Section 498a of the I. P. C. which was filed against the opposite parties but the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the petition.

( 6 ) NONE appeared for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 9 although Service of notice have been effected as per the A. D. cards and affidavit of service filed today be kept with the record.

( 7 ) IT appears 'that both the Cases are ready for trial

( 8 ) MR. Swapan Mullick, learned Counsel appearing for the State of west Bengal submits that under the law there is no bar in no bar in simultaneous trial of the two cases where the Sessions Trial and the Magistrate Triable case by same Additional Sessions Judge if the parties to the proceeding are the same and the case relate to one common fact.

( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties it appears to me that there is no legal impediment in simultaneous trial of the two cases side by side by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, arambagh, Hooghly in view of the fact that both the cases are ready for trial. The ground taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the petition of the petitioner does not appear to be impressive. Accordingly, the application is allowed: The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, arambagh, Hooghly shall transmit the record of G. R. Case No. 104 of 2002, State v. Prasanata Chattoraj and Ors. , to the learned Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Arambagh, Hooghly, who will conduct simultaneous trial of the Sessions Case No. 25 (6) of 2005 with the G. R. Case No. 104 of 2002. Both the cases shall be tried simultaneously but not analogously and the learned Judge will deliver judgment of both the cases upon completion of trial separately but at a time.

( 10 ) LET a copy, of the order be sent to the learned Additional Sessions judge, Fast Track Court, Arambagh, Hooghly and another copy shall be sent to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghty for information and necessary action.

( 11 ) THE application is thus disposed of. Let urgent pertified copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties, if applied for, by the criminal section.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document