Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Manoj - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 9136 of 2023
Decided On : 16-11-2023
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 342, 323, 325, 308, 147, 148, 149, 342, 323, 325, 354, 504, 506 - The judgment discusses the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of an order and the proceedings of a complaint case. The court analyzes the nature of the two versions of the incident, the delay in proceedings, and the principles governing cross-cases. The court concludes that the two cases are cross-versions arising from the same occurrence and should be tried together by the same judge, with evidence recorded separately in each case and judgments pronounced sequentially.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment discusses an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the quashing of an order and the proceedings of a complaint case. The case involves two versions of the same incident, one leading to a sessions trial and the other as a cross-version lodged at the instance of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the two cases are indeed cross-versions arising from the same occurrence and should be tried together by the same judge, with evidence recorded separately in each case and judgments pronounced sequentially.
Issues: The issues involve the nature of the two versions of the incident, the delay in proceedings, and the propriety of trying cross-cases together.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applies the principle that cross-cases arising from the same occurrence should be tried together by the same judge, with evidence recorded separately in each case and judgments pronounced sequentially, to avoid conflicting decisions.
Final Decision: The court quashes the impugned order and directs that the proceedings of the complaint case be called and tried by the same judge, separately, with evidence recorded in each case also separately, and judgments pronounced sequentially.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') praying that the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 219 of 2017, State vs. Manoj & others (arising out of Case Crime No.58 of 2017), under Sections 342, 323, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahr be quashed; and proceedings of Complaint Case No.523 of 2019, Kripa Devi vs. Ravikant and others, under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahr, pending before the Magistrate be called from that Court and tried along with the sessions trial aforesaid as a cross-case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
2. The offence, according to the First Information Report (for short, 'FIR'), giving rise to the sessions trial and the one giving rise to the cross-version lodged at the instance of the accused in the sessions trial, both relate to an incident that happened on 16.02.2017. The FIR, leading to the sessions trial, does not mention the time of occurrence, whereas the one that has led to the complaint case pending before the Magistrate, indicates the time to be 18:00 hours (6:00 p.m.). While the FIR giving rise to the sessions trial was promptly lodged on 16.02.2017, to wit, the date of occurrence, the cross-version came to be registered after a refusal by the Police to lodge it, under orders of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) of the Code. It was registered on 01.05.2017.
3. It would be apposite to refer to the prosecution version, as carried in the FIR, relating to Crime No.58 of 2017, that has given rise to the sessions trial. The FIR here was lodged by one Ratibhan son of Pyare Lal, a resident of Village Bagarai Kalan, District Bulandshahr. According to the informant here, the informant's son Ravikant Singh was abducted by the accused Manoj son of Dalchand, Mahesh, Babloo, sons of Dalchand, Trilok Chand son of Mahveer, Mahaveer son of Roopa, Deepak son of the late Raju and Dalchand son of the late Babu Lal, all natives of the village. These men abducted the informant's son Ravikant from his home and forcibly took him over to their house, where the accused battered the informant's son mercilessly, after stuffing his mouth with cloth. They carried out the assault employing iron rods, which were wielded by Mahaveer and Mahesh, whereas Babloo and Trilok wielded sticks (danda). These they employed to deliver grievous injuries to the victim's head. The accused, Deepak and Dalchand also had iron rods, which they used to deliver blows to the victim's limbs causing fracture to his hands and lower limbs. It is also alleged that Manoj, amongst the accused, opened fire with an intention to kill the victim employing a country-made pistol, but the informant's son was saved by a hairbreadth. It is on the basis of this version that Crime No.58 of 2017 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 308, 323, 325 I.P.C. at Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahr.
4. According to the FIR lodged by Smt. Kripa Devi wife of Manoj, that carries the cross-version, the accused were five in number. It includes Ravikant son of Ratibhan, Sanjeev son of Ratibhan, Vijayveer son of Kishan, Ratibhan son of Pyare Lal and Kishan son of Pyare Lal. According to this report, that has been lodged under orders of the A.C.J.M., Khurja, District Bulandshahr, on 16.02.2017 at about 6 o'clock in the evening, the first informant was feeding her buffaloes in the Gher behind her house, when Ravikant and Sanjeev sons of Ratibhan, Vijayveer, Ratibhan and Kishan forced their entry into her home and molested her. They tore up her clothes with an intent to outrage her modesty. The informant raised alarm, whereupon the informant's husband Manoj, his younger brothers Mahesh and Babloo, came over to the informant's rescue. Upon an attempt to rescue the informant, the accused here, employing the
The court emphasized the limitations of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the need for cross-cases to be tried together to avoid conflicting findings.
Cross-cases arising from the same incident should be tried sequentially by the same judge to prevent conflicting verdicts, ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.
The court affirmed the legitimacy of transferring related FIRs for consolidated trial to avoid conflicting judgments, upholding inherent jurisdiction to quash FIRs only in case of evident abuse of pr....
The Magistrate has the power to commit a case to the Sessions Court if it ought to be tried by the Sessions Court, even if the case is not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Additionally, int....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for simultaneous consideration of case and counter case by the same judge to avoid conflicting judgments, as per the principles laid down ....
It is salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. Such two different versions of....
Point of Law; even if one case is triable by Magistrate, there is no bar to get it tried along with the counter case triable by Court of Sessions.
The right to speedy trial for the accused and the imprudence of keeping the proceedings pending based on the status of another case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
