Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 512 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-03-29

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. The matrix of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, on 13.07.2010 at about 8-8.15 PM, the complainant and the accused party were present in the premises of Gurdwara Badhshahi Bagh, Ambala City. A cross-fight had taken place between them, in which, Manjit Singh, Maninder Singh and Gurmeet Singh, sustained injuries. In the wake of statement of complainant-Manjit Singh, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused Amarjit Singh and his other co-accused, namely, Gurpreet Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Harwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, vide FIR No.268 dated 14.07.2010(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506 IPC (offence under Section 307 IPC was subsequently added), by the police of Police Station Ambala City(for brevity “the 1st case”). 2. Sequelly, the petitioner claimed that, he, Gurpreet Singh, Gagandeep Singh and Harwinder Singh also sustained injuries in the same fight, but the police did not initially register a cross-case. They moved number of representations to the higher authorities and ultimately on his(petitioner) statement, a cross-case was registered against Pritam Singh, Sanki, Manjit Singh, Gurmeet and Maninder, pertaining to the same occurrence, by means of another FIR No.355 dated 15.09.2010(Annexure P-2), for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 427, 452 and 379 IPC, by the police of same Police Station Ambala City(for short “the 2nd case”). 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the respective challans/final police reports against the accused in both the cross-cases in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Area Magistrate committed the 1st case for trial to the Court of Sessions, but did not commit the 2nd case along with the 1st case. 4. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner moved an application(Annexure P-4), to commit the 2nd case for trial to the Court of Sessions along with the 1st cross-case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate(for short “the CJM”) dismissed the application through the medium of impugned order dated 09.05.2011(Annexure P-5). 5. 4. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner moved an application(Annexure P-4), to commit the 2nd case for trial to the Court of Sessions along with the 1st cross-case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate(for short “the CJM”) dismissed the application through the medium of impugned order dated 09.05.2011(Annexure P-5). 5. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned order(Annexure P-5), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that both the cases have arisen out of the same occurrence, on the same date, at the same time and place, as per site plans (Annexures P-6 and P-7). Since, the cross-cases emitted from the same occurrence, so, both the cases should be tried (simultaneously) together, in order to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned order(Annexure P-5), in the manner described hereinabove. 6. The respondent-State of Haryana refuted the prayer and filed the reply, inter alia, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. It was alleged that since both the occurrences are different, so, the CJM has rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner in this respect. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondent-State has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned State Counsel that, since the occurrence in both the cases was different, so, the 2nd case is not liable to be committed to the Court of Sessions, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 9. As is evident from the record that, as per prosecution version, both the parties were present within the premises of Gurdwara Badhshahi Bagh, Ambala City, when the occurrence originated at 8 PM and continued till 8-15 PM on 13.07.2010. A cross-fight had taken place in the same vicinity, as per rough site plans(Annexures P-6 and P-7), relied upon by the prosecution. A cross-fight had taken place in the same vicinity, as per rough site plans(Annexures P-6 and P-7), relied upon by the prosecution. A co-joint reading of the FIRs(Annexures P-1 and P-2) would reveal that, a cross-fight had originated and taken place between the complainant party and the accused-party, in which, PWs Manjit Singh, Maninder Singh and Gurmeet Singh, sustained injuries and 1st case was registered on the statement of Manjit Singh against petitioner-Amarjit Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Harwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, by way of FIR(Annexure P-1), whereas, in the 2nd cross-case, Amarjit Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Gagandeep Singh and Harwinder Singh, sustained injuries and 2nd criminal cross-case was registered against accused-Pritam Singh, Sanki, Manjit Singh, Gurmeet and Maninder, by virtue of FIR(Annexure P-2). 10. As is clear from the impugned order(Annexure P-5) that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the CJM, to negate the prayer of the petitioner was that, both the cases are different. Here, to my mind, the CJM has slipped into a deep legal error in this relevant connection. The mere fact that the two versions are variant at 15 minutes' time or to some distance of the place of occurrence, or to the confinement of the limits thereof, would not render the said two cases anything else than two cross-cases, particularly when, as indicated hereinabove that, both the cases have originated from the same occurrence. 11. Meaning thereby, once it stands proved on record that both the cross-cases have originated from the same incidence, in that eventuality, the next short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether both the cross-cases should be tried (simultaneously) together by the same Court or not? 12. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative. 13. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the version of the prosecution in the 1st case, would be a defence of the accused in the 2nd case and vice-versa. Whether the accused in the 1st case or in the 2nd case, were the aggressor and initiated the occurrence, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial. Whether the accused in the 1st case or in the 2nd case, were the aggressor and initiated the occurrence, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial. It would be legally prudent and in the interest of justice that, such intricate questions are decided (simultaneously) by one and the same Court, in order to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions of the same incidence. Not only that, it staves the danger of the accused being convicted before their whole case is presented before the Court. Thus, it deters conflicting judgments being delivered on similar facts by the different Courts. It cannot possibly be disputed here is that in reality, the version and the counter-version, or the conflicting version of one incident, differently projected by both the parties for all intents and purposes, are required to be clubbed together, in order to decide the real controversy between them. 14. Faced with the situation, learned State Counsel has thus, candidly conceded that it is fair and proper if both the cases be simultaneously decided by one and the same Court. Moreover, this matter is no more res integra and is well-settled. 15. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in case Sardara Singh Versus State of Haryana, 1974(1) The Criminal Law Times, 443, wherein it was observed(para 3) as under:- “3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is always desirable that the cross-cases should be tried together so that no prejudice is caused to any of the parties. In case, the trials of two cases are held separately it is likely that the prejudice may be caused to either of the parties. A similar view was taken in Ujagar Singh v. Emperor. In that case, a case was filed by the police against an accused. When the evidence in the case commenced, accused filed a cross complaint. This complaint was adjourned from time to time along with the challan case. After the arguments in the challan case were heard, the accused in the case asked for either to transfer the challan case or to stay the pronouncement of the order. When the evidence in the case commenced, accused filed a cross complaint. This complaint was adjourned from time to time along with the challan case. After the arguments in the challan case were heard, the accused in the case asked for either to transfer the challan case or to stay the pronouncement of the order. It was held that it was desirable that both cases should be heard by one and the same Magistrate and thus the danger of conflicting decisions being given on the same facts would be avoided and that the Magistrate should not pronounce orders in the challan case until he would have completed the hearing of the evidence in the complaint case. I am in respectful agreement with the above view.” 16. Not only that, again, it was ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kewal Krishan Versus Suraj Bhan and another, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1780, that if two cases arising out of the same transaction, are tried by two different Courts, then there is a risk of two Courts coming to conflicting findings. To obviate such a risk, it is ordinarily desirable that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same Court. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Therefore, to me, the CJM has committed an illegality and material procedural irregularity and thus, the impugned order(Annexure P-5) cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the cross-cases, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order(Annexure P-5) is hereby set aside. The CJM, Ambala, is directed to commit the indicated 2nd cross-case to the Court of Sessions, to be simultaneously tried along with the 1st main cross-case.