A trial court's decision to conduct a joint trial must prioritize judicial efficiency and prevent prejudice to the accused, especially when substantial evidence is already presented.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ranu Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Under challenge is the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Third, Gorakhpur in Case No.132791 of 2021 (State Vs. Satish Sudarshan Gupta and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.55 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur is wholly arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and has been passed without due application of judicial mind and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned trial court committed a patent error of law in allowing the application moved under Section 233(2) of the B.N.S.S. without taking into consideration the material fact that opposite party no. 2 did not approach the court with clean hands while filing the application dated 14.08.2025 under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S.

4. It is next submitted that the factum of filing a previous application seeking a joint trial, as well as the passing of the order dated 01.07.2025 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in Case No. 132791 of 2021, whereby such application was dealt with, was deliberately suppressed. As a result, it is manifest that the subsequent application dated 14.08.2025 under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S. was not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , (2010) 2 SCC 114 , wherein it has been held that a litigant who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 stands vitiated in law on account of concealment and suppression of material facts.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab , (2022) 2 SCC 89, wherein it was held that the decision to conduct a joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at the outset of the proceedings and for cogent reasons. The paramount consideration in such decision-making is whether a joint trial would cause prejudice to the accused or result in delay or wastage of judicial time. It was further held that even where the conditions under Sections 219 to 223 Cr.P.C. are satisfied, ordering a joint trial remains a matter of judicial discretion.

7. It is further contended that the learned trial court failed to assess the conduct of the private opposite parties, who appear to be interested only in lingering on the outcome of the pending criminal trial arising out of the First Information Report dated 15.08.2021. It is contended that on the date of filing of the application dated 14.08.2025 under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S., only one prosecution witness remained to be examined.

8. It is next submitted that the learned trial court did not adequately consider that holding a joint trial at such a belated stage would cause serious prejudice and irreparable loss to the revisionist. It is urged that, due to the conduct of the private opposite parties, the evidence in Complaint Case No. 31475 of 2021 has not been concluded till date and, therefore, could not be read against t