Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1007 (MP)

Toofan Singh v. State Of M. P.

2003-08-25

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
ORDER : Heard Shir Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Jayant Neekhra, learned Government Advocate for the State on the question of admission. 2. By this revision petition the applicants have called in question the order dated 1-5-2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sagar, in Criminal Case No. 2117/2002 whereby the application filed by the complainant for committing the case to the Sessions Court for trial together with Criminal Case No. 2010/2002 pending before Sessions Court has been allowed. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are : On 23-8-2002 a First Information Report was lodged against the present applicants for the commission of offence as alleged therein, on 23-8-2002 at 3 p.m., the same was registered as crime No. 235/2002 under section 147, 148, 254, 324, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. On 26-8-2002 another First Information Report was lodged against Halle and others for the commission of the alleged offence on 23-8-2002 at 3 p.m. itself. After investigation by police offence has been registered as Crime No. 238/2002 under section 447, 293, 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The complainants of the Crime No. 235/2002 moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar praying that because the date and time of the incident of Crime No. 235/2002 and of Crime No. 238/2002 are alleged to be the same and the parties being also the same, the case of Crime No. 235/2002 may also be committed to the Sessions Court for trial along with case of Crime No. 238/2002 which is a case triable by the Sessions Court. By the impugned order the prayer has been accepted. The applicants being aggrieved by it have come up in this revision. 5. Admittedly as per respective please taken by the parties, both the incidents are said to have been taken place on the same date and time. The accused persons and the complainants are in their respective cases, are alleging the commission of offences, on the same date and time but at different places, which is obviously not possible. 5. Admittedly as per respective please taken by the parties, both the incidents are said to have been taken place on the same date and time. The accused persons and the complainants are in their respective cases, are alleging the commission of offences, on the same date and time but at different places, which is obviously not possible. The counsel for applicants has not been able to point out as to what prejudice will cause to the applicants if both the cases are tried by the same Sessions Court. 6. In order to avoid any conflicting judgment, and for convenience of the parties the trial Court has ordered to commit the case pending before it to the Sessions Court where the other matter was pending for trial pertaining to Crime No. 235/2002. 7. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. On the other hand, the same has been passed in the interest of justice, in order to avoid any conflicting judgments and for the convenience of the parties. No interference is called for in this revision, accordingly the revision is dismissed in limine.