Cross-cases arising from the same incident should be tried in the same court to prevent conflicting judgments.

ORDER

1. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS assailing the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad District Bhind in Case No.34/2024 Criminal Revision whereby order dated 24.09.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohad District Bhind in case No. 142/2023 has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.01.2023 at about 9.30 am when complainant Rekha Kushwah was dusting her house, at that time, the present petitioners/accused persons came there and asked about Heeralal. When the complainant answered them that Heeralal/her husband is not at home, then the accused persons started hurling abuse in filthy language and when the complainant objected abusing, them the accused persons started beating her with wooden sticks and kick and fists. Due to which the complainant Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL sustained injuries. When Heeralal, Hem Singh and Ramnath came for intervening, the accused persons threatened them of dire consequences. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant Rekha Kushwah, offence bearing crime No. 10/2023 under Section 294, 323/34 and 506 of IPC was registered against the petitioners and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that FIR bearing Crime No. 10/2023 was registered at PS Mhow District Bhind for the offence under Section 294, 323/34 and 506 of IPC. Petitioner Ghanshyam Soni also lodged an FIR against Heerlal, Ramnath and Dharmendra and on the basis of his report offence bearing Crime No. 11/2023 under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 324, 325 and 326 has been registered against the opponent party which has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Bhind. Case registered on the basis of the Crime No. 10/2023 at PS Mhow has also been committed to Court of Session being treated as a cross case. But, place of incident, spot map, cause of action and time of incident was not similar in both the cases, therefore, both the cases cannot be treated as cross cases. Therefore, both the courts below have committed grave error in considering the both the cases as cross cases. Hence, he prays that impugned orders passed by both the courts below be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that both the cases are related to the same parties and the whole series of the act is connected together with the same transaction, therefore, they should be tried by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL same Court and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned orders passed by both the courts below.

5. Both the parties are heard and perused the FIR of both the cases.

6. From perusal of the FIRs, it appears that the parties of both the cases are almost similar and first offence bearing crime No. 10/2023 took place at about 9.30 am and the subsequent offence bearing crime No. 11/2023 took place at about 10.00 on the same day. Although the places of the incidents is not similar in both the cases but both the places of incident are adjacent to each other. It is a salutary practice that when the two criminal cases related with the same incident, they should be tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgements on the same date. Such two different versions of the same incident resulting in two criminal cases are compendiously called "case and counter-case or cross-case".

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001) 2 SCC 688.

12. How to implement the said scheme in a situation where one of the two cases (relating to the same incident) is char