Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 917 (PAT)

Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar

2012-07-04

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2012
ORDER 1. As in the above referred five petitions commen question of law has been raised, therefore with the consent of the parties there has been analogous hearing and is being disposed of by a common order. 2. In Cr.WJC No. 776 of 2011 there happens to be prayer for quashing of Shasti Nagar P.S. Case No. 155 of 2011 on the ground that for the same cause Khagaul P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009 already stood registered since before. The same happens to be the prayer with regard to Cr. WJC No. 330 of 2012. In remaining three petitions bearing Cr.WJC No. 1144 of 2011, CR. WJC No. 840 of 2011 and Cr.WJC No. 320 of 2012 there has been prayer on behalf of respective petitioner to quash Khagaul P.S. Case No. 58 of 2011 in the background of pendency of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009. In all those cases respective petitioner happens to be that of accused. 3. At the present moment, it looks pertinent to mention that State had filed counter affidavit in all the petitions as referred above wherein specifically disclosed that on the prayer of I.O., Khagaul P.S. Case No. 58 of 2011 has been allowed to be amalgamated with Khagaul P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide order dated 12.10.2011, The learned lawyer for the petitioner did not controvert the aforesaid averments made by the State through counter affidavit rather had annexed the order as Annexure-10. Hence now remains no lis pending which could justify the prayer of the respective petitioner. The DAV Management /informant of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 58 of 2011 has raised objection and submitted that the order is under challenge. Be that as it may in the changed situation when the order still command the spectrum pendency of these three criminal writs bearing Cr.WJC No. 1144 of 2011, Cr.WJC No. 840 of 2011 and Cr.WJC No. 320 of 2012 are found to be infructuous. 4. Be that as it may in the changed situation when the order still command the spectrum pendency of these three criminal writs bearing Cr.WJC No. 1144 of 2011, Cr.WJC No. 840 of 2011 and Cr.WJC No. 320 of 2012 are found to be infructuous. 4. With regard to remaining two petitions bearing Cr.WJC No. 776 of 2011 as well as Cr.WJC No. 330 of 2012 wherein the petitioners have prayed for quashing of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 155 of 2011 in the background of institution of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009 for the same cause, the State had filed counter affidavit and admitted the status of both the FIR for the same cause. It has further been disclosed that I.O. has been directed by the Supervising Authority to pray before the court for allowing amalgamation of both two. Subsequent development is not being brought on record. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not controvert the aforesaid contention of the State. 5. Again the informant of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 155 of 2011 put an objection on this score, and submitted that presence of both two cases are permissible apart from the fact that the same has been filed in the background of observation made by this Court while disposing of anticipatory bail petition bearing Cr. Misc. Nos. 41720/2009, 41336/2009, 21000/2009, order 16.4.2010. 6. In the aforesaid background, it will be a worthless affair to proceed and decide the issue for the present when necessary steps has been taken by the Investigating-Authority in this regard and it is expected that during intervening period the Investigating Authority might have proceeded in proper direction or would proceed smoothly when the State has shown its positive, affirmative reaction/response. At the present stage it looks desirable to incorporate para-37 of decision reported in (2010)9 SCC page 567:- "The submission on behalf of the appellants that two crimes bearing Nos. At the present stage it looks desirable to incorporate para-37 of decision reported in (2010)9 SCC page 567:- "The submission on behalf of the appellants that two crimes bearing Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000 could not be clubbed together, has also no merit for the simple reason that if the cases are considered, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two incidents occurred, taking into consideration the evidence of drivers and conductors/cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first incident and the evidence of C. Ramasundaram, VAO (PW-87), we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first occurrence. The damage caused to the public transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed." 8. Without adverting to merit of the case, these two petitions are disposed of in terms as referred above. Moreover it is made clear that respective parties will be at liberty to challenge the future recourse, if any, adverse to their interest.