JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. These two criminal revision petitions are being disposed of by one judgement since common questions of fact and law arise in both the cases.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a police challan was filed against the petitioner (Subhash Chand) under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. This challan was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una on 28.7.2000 and was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions since it disclosed offences which had to be tired by the Court of Sessions. This case was registered as Sessions Case No. 14 of 2001 and in this case the accused is only Subhash Chand. Another case being Sessions Case No. 15 of 2001 was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. In this complaint case, the complaint was not only against Subhash Chand but other members of his family who were proceeded under Section 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and husband Subhash chand was also charged under Section 498-A, 304- B and 306 read with Section 34 IPC, in addition to the charges framed in the police case. It is thus apparent that there was a police challan under Section 498-A and 306 IPC against accused Subhash Chand and in the complaint case Subhash Chand was also made to stand trial for having committed an offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and the other accused were tried for charges under Section 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.5.2001 ordered that since the police challan and the complaint were in respect of the same occurrence, both of them should be clubbed together. On 5.9.2001 also it was again noted that the police challan and the private complaint have been clubbed together and charges were framed. Both orders were passed in the presence of the accused as well as of the prosecution and the trial commenced in the year 2001. Witnesses were examined and the case proceeded till 10.6.2004. On that date, the prosecution in the police case and the complainant in the complaint case moved applications under Section 223 Cr.P.C for framing separate charges in both the cases. These applications were allowed vide the impugned orders and the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the judgement of the apex Court Balbir vs. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 11 and Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 S.C. 404 and held that the private complaint as well as the police challan could not have been tried together and therefore directed that amended charges be framed against the accused and listed both the cases again for prosecution evidence. Aggrieved by these orders, the accused have approached this Court in both the cases.

4. Pt. Om Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the accused has urged that both the cases were virtually complete and ready for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when the complainant and the State filed applications for separate trial of both the cases. Impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge had no power to review the earlier order dated 14.5.2001 and 5.9.2001. It is also urged that re-examination of the witnesses would cause injustice to the petitioner and would amount to the accused being tried twice for the same offence and as such the order is hit by article 20 of the Constitution of India.

5. The apex Court in both the aforesaid cases, relied by the learned trial Judge, has clearly held that the case on a police report and the case filed on the basis of a private complaint should not be clubbed together when the prosecution version in the two cases is different. The apex Court has held that where diverse stories are put up against the accused in the two cases, joint trial is not permissible. There can be no quarrel with this preposition