The main legal point established in the judgment is that cross cases arising from the same incident should be tried by the same judge to avoid conflicting judgments.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.(Oral): Challenge herein is to the order, Annexure P-2, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.11 of 2010, dated 2.3.2013 whereby the petition has been dismissed.

2.The occurrence having taken place between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 has led in registration of two F.I.Rs.; one being FIR No.182 of 2008 under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) at the instance of respondent No.2, whereas, the another FIR No.181 of 2008 under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code at the instance of the petitioner in Police Station, Barmana. An offence punishable under Section 354 of the Code is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, whereas, the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the Code is triable by Gram Panchayat under Section 32(1) of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Therefore, while the case registered under Section 354 of the Code vide FIR No.182 of 2008 against the petitioner is pending trial before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, the case under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the Code registered vide FIR No.18 1 of 2008 at his instance against respondents No.2 to 4 is pending trial before Gram Panchayat Sayer­Dhoba, district Bilaspur.

3.The accused-petitioner has made an application under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer that the record of the case pending for trial before the Gram Panchayat be called and the said case be also tried by learned Magistrate together with the case under Section 354 of the Code against him pending trial before the said Court being cross cases and the result of same occurrence. Learned trial Magistrate has dismissed the application vide order Annexure P-1 on the ground that the case registered vide FIR No.181 of 2008 is exclusively triable by Gram Panchayat.

4.In revision petition, learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur while taking note of the provisions contained under Section 32(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, has taken similar view of the matter and dismissed the revision petition.

5.It has been urged on behalf of the accused- petitioner that irrespective of the jurisdiction to try the offence in both FIRs, the same are required to be decided by the same Court. Learned Additional Advocate General, however, has pleaded the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate in respect of the trial of a case pertaining to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the Code as provided under Section 32(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act.

6. The law on the issue brought to this Court in this petition is no more res-integra as the Apex Court in State of M.P. Versus Mishrilal (dead) and others, (2003(9) SCC 426 has held that in order to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident, cross cases must be tried by the same Judge one after the other irrespective of the nature of the offence involved. This judgment reads as follows:-

“7. Undisputedly, accused Mishrilal lodged the report to the police vide Ex. D-8 over the same incident happened on 5-3-1987, in which he had clearly stated the injuries were sustained by him and his son Madhusudan at the hands of prosecution party. It is also not disputed that on the strength of the complaint lodged by Mishrilal, investigation was also carried out and challan was filed, namely, Crime Case no. 52 of 1987 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 324 IPC against the prosecution party which is pending for disposal before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. In the said challan, the prosecution party is stated to be an aggressor. This Court in Nathilal v. State of U.P. pointed out the procedure to be followed by the Trial Court in the event of cross cases. It was observed thus :-

“2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the sam