The court's decision emphasized that the applicant had no right to move the trial court for staying the proceedings and that the two cases could not be termed as cross cases.

Bharat Bhushan, J.

Heard Sri Irfan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 5.8.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ex-Cadre, Court No.1, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 73 of 2010 (State versus Farooq and another) arising out of Case crime no. 190 of 2009, Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur.

3. Another case was instituted by revisionist Haroon being Case crime no. 190-A under section 147,452,323,504,506,304 IPC, Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur wherein final report was filed by the Police subsequent to investigation. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed which was treated as complaint wherein accused-persons were summoned. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 (accused-persons) filed an APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 15091 of 2013 (Afjal and others versus State of U.P. and others) and a coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the further proceedings of complaint case. During the course of trial in Case crime no. 190 of 2009, one Haroon moved an application at a very belated stage seeking stay of the trial in Case crime no. 190 of 2009 (S.T. No. 73/2010) on the ground that cross case is pending wherein proceedings have been stayed by this Court, as it would be appropriate to conclude both the proceedings simultaneously. This application was rejected by the impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ex-Cadre, Court No. 1, Saharanpur, claiming that both the cases can not be termed as cross case. In any case, stated cross case has not yet been committed, therefore, stay of the proceedings of the case, which is at the argument stage, is not possible. This order is under challenge before this Court.

4. Revisionist Haroon has no connection with the instant case arising out of Case crime no. 190 of 2009. In this case, two persons, namely, Farooq and Mobin are facing trial. The complaint was filed by one Akhlaq and Haroon is not even witness in the case as indicated by the charge-sheet (Annexure-2 to the affidavit). Revisionist Haroon has no right to move trial court for staying the proceedings. Further, the trial court has concluded that both the cases are different and can not be termed as cross case. Apart from that alleged cross case, complainant's case is yet to be committed. Whether it would be committed or not is also questionable. No body can assume future judicial orders. It is true that cross cases are ordinarily tried together but in the present dispute, Additional Sessions Judge has almost concluded the present case while the other case is still pending before the Magistrate. In any case, locus of Haroon itself is in question as he is stranger to the present Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2010.

5. For the reasons stated above, this revisional Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality, while passing the impugned order. I find no scope for interference in the impugned order. The impugned order is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from material illegality, irregularity, perversity and jurisdiction error.

6. The criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court through the Sessions Judge within two weeks.