Cross-cases arising from the same incident should be tried and decided simultaneously to avoid conflicting findings, and the discretion of the Sessions Judge to retain the case for trial after framing charges was upheld.

1. - This revision petition under section. 397/401 Criminal Penal Code is directed against the order dated 20.7.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No. 50/2002 (2/2001) whereby the learned Judge has ordered trial of the case triable by Magistrate along with Sessions Case No. 39/2002 while exercising his powers under section. 228 Criminal Penal Code.

2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that an occurrence took place on the night of 1.3.1999. Two FIRs were got registered about this incident. The FIR No. 49/99 was registered for the offences under sections. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 452, 307 & 302 Indian Penal Code on the basis of statement of Chhotu Lal recorded by the police in the hospital after receiving telephonic information from the Medical Officer. Another FIR being No. 50/99 was registered for the offences under sections. 147, 148, 452, 323, 307/149 IPC by Mohan Lal on 2.3.1999. After investigation, the police submitted the F.R. in case FIR No. 50/99 holding that it was got registered as a counter of defence to the earlier FIR No. 49/99. The complainant filed a protest petition in that case before the Court thereupon after making necessary enquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 27.11.2000 for the alleged offences. The order of taking cognizance was challenged by way of a revision petition before this Court. The revision petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioners may raise the grounds sought to be raised before this Court before the learned trial Court at the time of framing of the charges. In the meanwhile, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge who after hearing the parties on the question of framing of the charges, discharged the accused persons of all the alleged offences. Mohan Lal, the complainant, approached this Hon'ble Court in revision which was allowed on 21.8.2001 and the order of discharging the accused persons was quashed and set aside and the learned Sessions Judge was directed to frame charges for whatever offences that may appear from the record against petitioner-Chhotu Lal only. However, the learned Court below was given the liberty to summon other accused persons under section. 319 Criminal Penal Code, if after recording of the evidence, any more persons were found to be involved in the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge summoned petitioner-Chhotu Lal and after hearing the parties on the question of framing of the charges and on the basis of the available record, framed charge for the offence uls. 326 IPC against him but instead of transferring the case to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that the case be tried along with the Sessions Case arising out of FIR No. 49/99 as both these cases were cross cases and it was just and proper to try and decide both these cases together. The said order has been impugned in this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as record of both the cases.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that these two cases are not cross cases. The place of occurrence in both the cases is different. According to him, in FIR No. 49/99, the occurrence has been shown to have taken place in the house of petitioner-Chhotu Lal whereas in the case FIR No. 50/99, the occurrence has been shown to have taken place in the house of Pukhraj. He has further contended that FIR No. 50/99 has been got registered as a counter or defence to the case FIR No. 49/99 as has been found by the police after investigation also. He has submitted that the trial in the Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 49/99 is at its fag end as almost all the witnesses in that case have already been examined. If this case arising out of FIR No. 50/99, which is triable by a Magistrate, is allowed to be tried along with the aforesaid Sessions Case, the d