Proceedings involving distinct allegations and different accused parties must be held separately to ensure judicial propriety and avoid conflicting decisions.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is one of the accused in C.C.No.973/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva. He is also an accused in C.C.No.1116/2018 before the same court. Both the above cases are initiated at the behest of the 3rd respondent.

2. The reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows :-

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing Exhibits P2 and P10 further directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva to drop the entire proceedings in C.C.No.973 of 2011 and C.C.No.1116 of 2018.

(ii) To pass an order of stay with respect to all further proceedings in C.C.No.973 of 2011 and C.C.No.1116 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva pending disposal of this writ petition.

(iii) Pass such other orders which the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to be granted in the interest of justice.

3. Ext.P2 is a protest complaint filed by the 3rd respondent which is now pending as C.C.No.973 of 2011 before the earlier mentioned court while Ext.P10 is the final report filed in C.C.No.1116/2018 again before the court mentioned earlier.

4. Though the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as noted earlier, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions against the procedural violation in Ext.P11 proceeding of the learned Magistrate. As per Ext.P11, the learned Magistrate had directed the trial in C.C.No.973/2011 to be conducted along with C.C.No.1116/2018 as per the provisions of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .

5. According to Sri.Abraham Mathew Vettoor, the procedure contemplated under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be adopted when the offences alleged in both cases are different and also the accused arrayed in both the cases are different. He fairly referred to the decisions of this Court inGireesh and Others v. Rahim and Another [2020 (4) KLT 77] as well as Samuel Mathai and Others v. State of Kerala and Another [ 2007 3 KHC 682 ]. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision in Pal @ Palla v. State of Utter Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 123] and contended that when the versions in the complaint case and the police report are totally different, the trial should be held separately and the evidence ought to be taken separately but by the same presiding officer to avoid conflicting decisions.

6. Though the reliefs sought for in the writ petition do not include a challenge against Ext.P11, since the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to the procedural impropriety of clubbing C.C.No.973/2011 and C.C.No.1116/2018 both pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, I deem it appropriate to consider the validity of the procedure directed to be adopted in Ext.P11 proceedings dated 20.06.2022. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also submitted that he has no objection in the challenge against Ext.P11 being considered by this Court despite the absence of such a challenge in the writ petition.

7. The complaint filed by the petitioner as M.P.No.3545/2008 was referred for investigation to the Aluva Police Station. Thereafter, a crime was registered as FIR No.2697/2008 before the Aluva Police Station. However, after investigation, a report was filed referring the case. Based upon a protest complaint filed by the 3rd respondent, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the protest complaint as C.C.No.973/2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 447, 450, 452 and 395 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner and five others.

8. In the meantime, the 3rd respondent had approached various other authorities pointing out the failure of the police to investigate into his complaint. Based upon the repeated representations of the petitioner, a final report was filed arraying the petitioner and three other persons as accused alleging offences punishable under Sect