Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3827 (ALL)

Tafjul v. State of U. P.

2015-12-04

OM PRAKASH VII

body2015
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII, J. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 2289 of 2012 (Noorul Nisha Vs. Tafjul and others) and also to quash the order dated 29.06.2015 passed on the application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 328 of 2013 arising out of N.C.R. No. 188 of 2012 under Section 323 , 504, 506 IPC, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Deoria and also to command the learned court below for passing a fresh order under Section 210 Cr.P.C. 2. It appears that N.C.R. were lodged from both sides. In one N.C.R., police investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet but the opposite party no. 2 regarding the incident of another N.C.R. filed complaint against the persons already named in the N.C.R. The court concerned after collecting the evidence on the complaint summoned the applicants to face the trial. During pendency of the proceeding an application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. was moved in Criminal Case No. 328 of 2013 with the prayer to merge the complaint case and the criminal case both. Objection was filed on the application. The court concerned on 29.06.2015 rejected the application observing that both the cases could not be merged with each other but they shall be tried together. It is also clear from the record that in the complaint case and the police chalani case, there was some difference regarding the offences. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that order passed by the concerned Magistrate is illegal. Both the cases are arising out of the same transaction. One was investigated by the police and other is the result of complaint, therefore, both the cases should be merged with each other. Complaint is barred. The court concerned has illegally appreciated the facts raised by the applicants. 4. Learned A.G.A. argued that under Section 210 (2) Cr.P.C., both the cases shall be tried together. There is no any provision under law to merge both the cases with each other. The application was mis-conceived, hence learned court below has rightly rejected the application. It was further argued that submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that proceeding of the complaint case shall be quashed on the above ground is also not acceptable. 5. There is no any provision under law to merge both the cases with each other. The application was mis-conceived, hence learned court below has rightly rejected the application. It was further argued that submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that proceeding of the complaint case shall be quashed on the above ground is also not acceptable. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that for the same date of offence i.e. 30.05.2012 one N.C.R. was lodged on behalf of Noorul Nisha as N.C.R. no. 188 of 2012, another N.C.R. no. 189 of 2012 was lodged by Tafjul, the present applicant no. 1. In the N.C.R. no. 189 of 2012 police submitted charge-sheet after investigation but the applicant no. 1 of N.C.R. No. 188 of 2012 filed the complaint in which present applicants have been summoned. Under the provision of Section 210 (2) Cr.P.C. in such a situation both the cases shall be tried together. There is no any provision to merge the cases with each other for trial. The finding recorded by the court concerned for trial of both the cases together is in accordance with law. There is no any illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the order. Hence, no ground is made out to exercise the jurisdiction vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Thus, this application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.