Back
1988 Supreme(P&H) 157
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Grewal, J.
Piare Lal
Versus
Beant Singh
Criminal Revision No. 122 of 1987,
Decided On : MAY 13, 1988
In cases arising from the same incident, it is in the interest of justice for both cases to be decided together, as provided in the Proviso to Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Proviso to Section 210 - Same Incident - The court held that in cases arising from the same incident, it is in the interest of justice for both cases to be decided together, as provided in the Proviso to Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The State case and a private complaint arising from the same incident were pending before the trial Magistrate. The accused in the private complaint were discharged, but the order was set aside on revision by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner argued that the trial Magistrate should have stayed the trial as the case was pending, citing the Proviso to Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the Proviso to Section 210 was not applicable to the present case. It directed the trial Court to dispose of both cases expeditiously.
Issues: Interpretation of Proviso to Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relevance of the provision to the present case, and whether the trial Magistrate should have stayed the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Proviso to Section 210 was not applicable to the present case, as the accused in the main case had filed a private complaint concerning the same occurrence. It held that in the interest of justice, both cases arising from the same incident should be decided together.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of both cases expeditiously.
S.S.Grewal, J.
1. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that out of the one and the same incident State case Re : State v. Surjit Singh and others and one private complaint Re : Beant Singh v. Piare Lal and others are pending before the learned trial Magistrate. In the complaint case, some prosecution evidence is being recorded whereas in the private complaint, the accused was discharged after recording evidence, vide the order dated 2-6-1986. The said order had been set aside on revision, by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala vide the impugned order dated 11-10-1986. No illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. During the course of arguments, advanced on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner, it is contended that the learned trial Magistrate should have stayed his hands as the trial of the case was pending. Proviso to Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is relevant in this regard. The perusal of this section reveals that the said proviso is not applicable to the present care. In this the accused in the main case have filed a private complaint concerning the some occurrence. The complainant party in the main case is stated to be the actual aggressor. Both these cases arise out of the same incident in the interest of justice both the cases should be decided together as held in case Ajmer Singh v. Thakar Singh and another, 1974 Chandigarh Law Reporter 593. No ground for interference has been made out. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to dispose of both the case expeditiously. The petitioners have been directed to appear in the trial Court through counsel on 2 June, 1988.
