Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3727 (ALL)

Ashfaq Ahmad v. State of U. P. And Others

2010-12-15

A.K.ROOPANWAL

body2010
Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.:- This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. No. 3, Azamgarh, in S. T. No. 350 of 2007, State Vs. Ashfaq, whereby an application moved by the applicant for committing the alleged cross-case to the Court of Sessions was rejected. It appears from the record that S.T. No. 350 of 2007, State Vs. Ashfaq was pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. No. 3, Azamgarh. It reached up to the stage of defence evidence. At that time an application 91 Kha was moved by the applicant Ashfaq (accused in the Sessions Trial) that he had filed a Complaint Case No. 3256 of 2009 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, and till the commitment of that case to the Court of the Sessions, the proceedings of the Sessions Trial should be stayed. That application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 28.8.2010 on the ground that the place of occurrence in both the cases is different and that the proceedings of the complaint case are stayed by the revisional court. I have heard Mr. R. S. Saroj, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Saroj that before the decision of the revision it was not all at proper for the Additional Sessions Judge (trial court of S.T. No. 350/07) to proceed with the sessions trial. A look at the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge would reveal that the Sessions Judge did not consider the complaint case as the cross-case on the ground that the occurrence had not been told in both the cases at the same place. I feel that this approach of the Additional Sessions Judge is wrong. Mere difference in the place of occurrence cannot be the sole criteria to determine as to whether a particular case is the cross-case of the other or not. It is quite possible that one party would have told the place of occurrence at one place and the other party would have told at the other place while both the parties had stated to the effect that there was only one incident and almost at the same time. It is quite possible that one party would have told the place of occurrence at one place and the other party would have told at the other place while both the parties had stated to the effect that there was only one incident and almost at the same time. Therefore, the opinion of the Sessions Judge does not appear to be correct that the complaint case could not be treated to be the cross case of the sessions trial. In such view of the matter, I do feel that till it is decided by analysing the facts of both the cases i.e. the sessions trial as well as the complaint, the sessions trial should not be allowed to proceed and therefore, the order passed by the Sessions court is wrong and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the order dated 28.8.2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court concerned to decide it in specific terms as to whether the complaint case is the cross-case of S.T. No. 350 of 2007 or not by keeping in mind the facts of both the cases. If the court comes to the conclusion that the complaint case is not the cross-case of the sessions trial then it shall proceed with the sessions trial and if it was found to be a cross-case of the sessions trial then the trial court should wait till the decision of the revision and should not proceed further with the trial of S.T. No. 350 of 2007.