Jai Narain vs Amarjit - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3241

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Jai Narain – Petitioner
Versus
Amarjit – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 47717 of 2019
Decided On : 09-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate,Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 372, 374, 407, and 482 - Petition filed for clubbing of two appeals arising from judgments of acquittal in FIR and complaint cases, wherein both parties were acquitted by the same trial court - The petitioner sought clubbing to avoid contradictory judgments due to pending appeals in different forums - The court invoked powers under Section 407 to meet the ends of justice and avoid miscarriage. (Paras 1-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was acquitted in FIR No.127 and the respondent in a concurrent complaint against the petitioner - Cases arose from a dispute relating to fabricated receipts, each party alleging criminal actions against the other. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The High Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the potential for conflicting judgments and granted the transfer request to club the appeals. (Paras 11-14)

Issues: The primary issue was whether conflicting appeals from acquittal could be adjudicated separately without prejudice to either party. (Para 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining consistency in judicial outcomes by clubbing appeals pending in separate forums arising from the same incident. (Paras 12-14)

Result: The petition was allowed, and the Additional Sessions Judge was directed to transfer the appeal to the High Court for hearing. (Para 14)

Table of Content
1. factual background of the cases. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for clubbing appeals. (Para 3)
3. no disputes on statutory provisions. (Para 4 , 5)
4. court observations on the case status. (Para 6)
5. clarification of appeal rights. (Para 7 , 8)
6. court's reasoning on acquittal appeals. (Para 9 , 10)
7. addressing potential conflicts in appeals. (Para 11 , 12)
8. transfer of appeal to ensure justice. (Para 13)
9. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 407 (1)(c)(ii) read with 482 Cr.P.C. praying for clubbing CRM-A-1007-MA-2018 arising out of judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by learned ACJM, Gurugram in criminal complaint No.36 of 2008 dated 30.10.2008, under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, wherein, the respondent has been acquitted which is pending before this Court and Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 arising out of judgment dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned ACJM, Gurugram in FIR No.127, dated 01.03.2011, registered under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 IPC titled as State v. Jai Narain , wherein the petitioner has been acquitted, which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that the petitioner was prosecuted by the respondent in above-said FIR No.127 on account of preparing two fabricated receipts dated 01.08.2007 and 25.02.2008 to the tune of Rs.50 lacs each and on the other hand, the petitioner had filed above-said criminal complaint No.36 against the respondent before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The incident was reported to the police by both the parties and the police officials registered FIR against the petitioner, however, did not register cross case against the respondent and hence, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court on 31.10.2008. Both the cases arisen out of the same incident between the same parties, were tried and decided together by the same Court i.e. learned ACJM, Gurugram vide separate orders dated 05.12.2017 in both the cases. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused in both the cases i.e. the petitioner, who was accused in FIR case and the respondent, who was accused in complaint case. Aggrieved by both these judgments of acquittal, both the petitioner and the respondent assailed the respective judgments of acquittal before the learned Appellate Court. As per the appellate jurisdiction, the petitioner filed the leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. before this Court by way of CRM-A-1007-MA- 2018, which is pending adjudication before this Court. However, respondent at whose behest the petitioner was prosecuted in FIR case, had assailed the order of acquittal against the petitioner by way of filing Appeal No.52 of 2018 as enumerated under Section 374 Cr.P.C., before the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram and the same is pending adjudication before it. As the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is of version and cross-version regarding which one case is pending before this Court and another one before Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by of filing the present petition under Section 407 (1)(c)(ii) read with 482 Cr.P.C. praying for clubbing CRM-A-1007-MA-2018 and Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2018 and deciding them together.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the inter-se dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is regarding an agreement to sell between both of them as there arose a dispute regarding execution of sale deed. He submits that both the parties had their version regarding the dispute and hence, both of them approached the police for the redressal of their grievances by praying for registration of FIR against each other. He submits that on the basis of the version of the petitioner, no FI