Cross-cases arising from the same incident should be tried sequentially by the same judge to prevent conflicting verdicts, ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Soro in S.T. Case No.12 of 2022 corresponding to C.T. Case No.674 of 2019. By the said order, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has allowed the prayer of the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and fixed the hearing of S.T case No. 12 of 2022 and S.T case No.3 of 2022 on the same day.

2. Mr. B.S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the observation in the order wherein it is stated that the prayer of the petitioner has been allowed and submits that the two cases do not relate to the same occurrence and even if they relate to the same occurrence they cannot be tried together as the accused persons and witnesses in the two cases are different petitioners. He has also submitted that the trial court could not have passed such an order as it was only the magistrate who could have directed for the same while committing the cases. He relies on the decision in the case of Danda Naik and three others vs. State of Orissa reported in 2007 (II) OLR 742, to buttress his submissions.

3. Mr S.S. Mohapatra learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that since the occurrences in both the cases have taken place on the same day, time and place and investigated by the same I.O., to prevent conflicting decisions, it would be proper if they are heard on the same day by the same Judge. No possible prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, so this application has no merit and should be dismissed.

4. Perusal of the FIR in Khaira P.S case No.141 of 2019 (Annexure-1) reveals that the occurrence had taken place on 03.08.2019 at Badanuagaon between 9.00 pm to 9.30 pm and FIR was registered at 21.10 hrs on the same day (night) on the information of Gajendra Behera against Laxmidhara Swain, Ghanashyam Swain and Mana Swain (petitioners), under Sections -341,294,307,323,324,506/ 34 I.P.C.

On a perusal of the FIR in Khaira P.S case no.142 of 2019 (Annexure-2), I find that the occurrence had taken place on 03.08.2019 at Badanuagaon between 9.00 pm to 9.30 pm and FIR was registered at 21.20 hrs on the same day (night) on the information of Manmath Swain against Gajendra Behera, Balaram Behera and Jagannath Behera (opposite parties No. 2 to 4) under Sections - 294,307,323,324,341/34 I.P.C.

Therefore the contention of the learned counsel that the occurrences in the two case cases have not taken place in the same place and time and do not relate to the same incident is not correct.

5. Coming to the second contention of the learned counsel that prejudice which will be caused to the petitioners if the two cases are tried together, it would be apposite to refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court on this aspect.

In the case of Nathilal & others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : 1990 Supp SCC 145 , the Supreme Court has pointed out the procedure to be followed by the trial court in the event of cross-cases by observing as follows:

“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 same learned Judge must try both the cross-cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross-case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cr