The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for simultaneous trial of cross cases and the need for both cases to be tried by the same judge to ensure fairness and equality.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

The applicant, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to direct that the criminal trials arising out of FIR No. 96 of 2011 (case crime number 110 of 2011), police station Bhagwanpur, registered by the petitioner and FIR No. 153 of 2009 (case crime no. 220 of 2009), in police station Bhagwanpur, registered at the behest of accused/respondent no. 3 should be tried simultaneously by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee or any other competent court. The applicant also seeks to call for the record of Writ Petition No. 1383 of 2012 and direct the hearing/adjudication of the said petition alongwith the instant petition. Applicant also seeks that during the pendency of both these petitions, viz., the instant petition and Writ Petition No. 1383 of 2012, the criminal trial arising out of FIR No. 153 of 2009, (case crime no. 220 of 2009) against the petitioner and others and presently pending in the court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee should be stayed.

2) According to the applicant, the facts arising out of case crime no. 220 of 2009 and case crime no. 110 of 2011 and the respective charge-sheets filed therein, revealed that they relate to the same transactions and are cross cases, in as much as, the complainant and witness in one case, are the accused in other case and vice-versa.

3) It is contended on behalf of the applicant that it is not only desirable but is also mandatorily required that both the cases arising out of the two FIRs are not only tried simultaneously, but are also tried by the same Judge.

4) Reliance was placed upon the decisions of Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1985 (1) SCC 422 and State of M.P. vs. Mishri Lal, (2003) 9 SCC 426. In matters involving cross cases, both the complaints cannot be said to be right and one of them must be false. The truth or otherwise of an FIR/charge-sheet and the veracity of the statement of the witnesses filed alongwith challan, as also the documents accompanying it, can only be ascertained through the touchstone of evidence recorded during a trial. Equality and fairness, as also the mandate of law, in such situation require that the same Court should examine the witnesses in both the cases simultaneously, albiet in different trial, so as to arrive at the truth.

5) Reliance was also placed upon the decision of Nathi Lal and others vs. State of U.P. and another, 1990 (Supp) SCC 145, which was followed subsequently in a number of decisions. The acceptance of one version at the conclusion of a trial would invariably lead to the rejection of the cross version. According to learned counsel for the applicant, if only one trial is allowed to continue and the other trial is stayed or not allowed to be carried out simultaneously, the fate of such latter trial would already be sealed with the pronouncement of the verdict in the first trial. There is likelihood of conflicting decisions, which would lead to a travesty of justice.

6) It may be noted here that the applicants Satbir Sehrawat and others moved an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court against the issuance of non-bailable warrant against them (as accused persons) by the trial court. In a way, the applicants prayed for quashing of the summoning order and the charge-sheet submitted against them. When the applicants did not appear before the trial court, then non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused persons. The application moved by them under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this Court. The accused persons challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing criminal appeal no. 627 of 2011 and criminal appeal no. 628 of 2011, which were disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 25.02.2011.

7) The judgment and order rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court is excerpted here-in-below for convenience:

“Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties