JUDGMENT :

The challenge in this Original Petition is to the order dated 17.11.2023 in C.M.P.No.4516/2023 in S.T.No.977/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Alathur.

2. Petitioner No.2 is the defacto complainant in S.T. No.977/2022 (which arose from Crime No.399/2022 of Alathur Police Station) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. Petitioner No.1, who is her son, is the accused in S.C.No.945/2022 (which arose from Crime No.212/2022 of Alathur Police Station) on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Mannarkkad. The petitioners filed an application seeking committal of S.T.No.977/2022 for facilitating trial by the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Mannarkkad, where S.C. No.945/2022 is pending on the ground that the two cases are ‘cross cases’.

3. The incident which led to the registration of Crime No.212/2022 of Alathur Police Station allegedly occurred on 13.2.2022 between 21 hrs and 22 hrs at the residence of the defacto complainant therein at Thonikkadavu. Petitioner No.1 and the other accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. The petitioners alleged that on the same day (13.2.2022) at the same place of occurrence at 22 hrs., the incident which led to the registration of the Crime No.399/2022 of Alathur Police Station had occurred.

5. The petitioners contended that the time of occurrence in S.C.No.945/2022 is between 21 hrs and 22 hrs., whereas the time of occurrence of the case pending before the Magistrate’s Court (S.T.No.977/2022) is 22 hrs. The petitioners further pleaded that the scene of occurrence is also the same.

6. The learned Magistrate found that the two cases cannot be considered as ‘case and counter case’ for the following reasons:

a) The defacto complainant in S.T.No.977/2022 is not an accused in S.C.No.945/2022.

b) The place of occurrence and the time of occurrence in both cases are different.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding of the learned Magistrate that the time of occurrence is different cannot be sustained as the time of occurrence in S.C. No.945/2022 is between 21 hrs. and 22 hrs., whereas the time of occurrence in the case now pending before the learned Magistrate is 22 hrs. It is submitted that the incident in S.T.No.977/2022 is the continuation of the incident in the other case. It is further submitted that the place of occurrence is also the same.

9. Going by the contentions, it is seen that whether the time of occurrence and places of occurrence are one and the same is a question of fact that cannot be decided at this stage. Prima facie, the petitioners could place materials to show that the cases are ‘cross cases’.

10. It is trite that ‘cross cases’ shall be tried by the same Court. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Goriparthi Krishtamma and others v. Emperor (1929 SCC OnLine Mad 429) = (1929 MWN 881) suggested 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.

11. In Krishna Pannadi v. Emperor (AIR 1930 Mad 190), the Court held that there is no clear law regarding the procedure in counter cases, a defect that the legislature ought to remedy. It is a generally recognized rule that such cases should be tried in quick succession by the same Judge, who should only pronounce judgment once the hearing of both cases is finished.

12. The judicial precedents underline the reason for such a procedure as (a) it prevents the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court, (b) it deters confli