JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present petition has been filed by Raghuvar Saini @ Raghuvir Saini and his four sons namely Krishan Gopal Saini, Girdhari Saini, Narendra Saini and Rajesh Saini. They are aggrieved against the order dated 9.9.2016 whereby the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur Metropolitan, ordered framing of charges under Sections 147, 452, 427 and 323/149 IPC against Raghuvar Saini, Krishna Gopal Saini, Girdhari Saini and Rajesh Saini, whereas against accused Narender Saini court ordered framing of charges for the offences under Sections 147, 452, 323/149, 427 and 355 IPC. 2. Aggrieved against the order dated 9.9.2016, petitioners filed a revision petition. The said revision petition was dismissed on 12.9.2017 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan. 3. In the present petition, it is averred that FIR No. 119/2004 was lodged by petitioner Raghuvar Saini against Ramswarup Yadav, who is complainant of FIR No.120/2004, in which charges have been framed against the petitioners vide impugned order dated 9.9.2016. 4. Thus, it is apparent that qua same incident dated 4.4.2004, two FIRs bearing No.119/2004 and 120/2004 were registered. FIR No.119/2004 was lodged by petitioner Raghuvar Saini, whereas cross FIR No.120/2004 was registered at the behest of Ramswarup Yadav respondent no.2. Both the FIRs were registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. 5. In the FIR No.119/2004 registered at the instance of petitioner No.1 Raghuvar Saini, the trial court convicted respondent no.2 Ramswarup Yadav alongwith his father Sita Ram Yadav and sentenced them to undergo three years RI. In the FIR preferred by the respondent no.2 Ramswarup Yadav bearing No.120/2004, investigating agency submitted Final Report in negative form. The respondent No.2 Ramswarup Yadav filed a protest petition therein and consequently cognizance of offences was taken against the petitioners by the court of Judicial Magistrate No.15, Jaipur vide order of cognizance dated 11.8.2005. 6. In the FIR preferred by the respondent no.2 Ramswarup Yadav bearing No.120/2004, investigating agency submitted Final Report in negative form. The respondent No.2 Ramswarup Yadav filed a protest petition therein and consequently cognizance of offences was taken against the petitioners by the court of Judicial Magistrate No.15, Jaipur vide order of cognizance dated 11.8.2005. 6. In Para-10 of the present petition, petitioners have taken various grounds and one of the ground '(E)', reads as under:- "(E) BECAUSE the Revisional Court had taken the note of the fact that the Non Petitioners have been convicted way back in the year 2007 by the Sessions Court and that all has attained the finality, entire evidence of the Non Petitioners had been laid and considered by the Sessions Court thereby no scope was left in considering the versions of the Non Petitioners at all, if at all the charge framing Order has to sustain that will mean that the Conviction Order will develop some dents into it and by developing the present impugned proceedings a parallel challenge will be developed by the Non Petitioners which can not be allowed at all. A Photostat Copy of the Judgment dated 29.03.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P.9." 7. During the course of arguments, Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the FIR lodged by the petitioner no.1 bearing No.119/2004 contained a version and FIR No.120/2004 registered against petitioners contain a cross version, both the cases ought to have been tried simultaneously but separately. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since upon version unfolded by the petitioner no.1 in FIR No.119/2004, respondent no.2 Ramswarup Yadav and his father Sita Ram Yadav have been convicted and they have preferred an appeal, petitioners should not be tried in a cross version as the version given by the petitioners already stand accepted by the court of law. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, order of the present petition was reserved on 30.7.2018, as the counsel for the petitioners undertook to file written arguments alongwith the case law in support thereof. On 14.8.2018, vide Inward No.25500, counsel for the petitioners has filed written arguments in the Registry. 10. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, order of the present petition was reserved on 30.7.2018, as the counsel for the petitioners undertook to file written arguments alongwith the case law in support thereof. On 14.8.2018, vide Inward No.25500, counsel for the petitioners has filed written arguments in the Registry. 10. In the grounds submitted in the written arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the judgment of conviction dated 29.3.2007 is already in existence, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted in FIR No.120/2004 registered at the instance of the respondent no.2. 11. In the ground '(G)' of the written arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has averred as under:- (G) BECAUSE the provisions contained in Sections 40 onwards in Chapter II of the Evidence Act, 1872 mandates the Courts to take into consideration whereby the Judgment of conviction of the year 2007 should have been considered and in the light of the same the Charge framing Order should have been quashed as the incident and facts have been same in both the F I Rs Numbering 119 and 120 of the year 2004. This view of the Petitioners is supported by the Verdict rendered in Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of W.B. & Anr, (2011) CrLJ 1747 Para 16 This Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector of Police and Another, wherein it has been held as follows: 30. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is (1) the previous judgment which is final can be relied upon as provided under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act; (2) in civil suits between the same parties, principle of res judicata may apply; (3) in a criminal case, Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure makes provision that once a person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for the same offence if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied; (4) if the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for the same cause, judgment of the civil court would be relevant if conditions of any of Sections 40 to 43 are satisfied, but it cannot be said that the same would be conclusive except as provided in Section 41. Section 41 provides which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein. Hence, we reject this submission of Mr. Malhotra. 16. Mr. Section 41 provides which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein. Hence, we reject this submission of Mr. Malhotra. 16. Mr. Malhotra submits that finding recorded in the adjudication proceeding is not binding on the criminal proceedings as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence therein, Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, relevant portion whereof reads as follows: 32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Malhotra that finding in an adjudication proceeding is not binding in the proceeding for criminal prosecution. A person held liable to pay penalty in adjudication proceeding can not necessarily be held guilty in criminal trial. Adjudication proceedings are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence of a little higher degree whereas in a criminal case entire burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. In the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) relied on by Mr. Malhotra, the question which fell for consideration was as to whether bar u/s 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) operates for taking cognizance when a complaint is filed alleging that will filed by the accused in a probate case is forged and while holding that the bar would not operate if the will is forged before its filing in the court, hence, the aforesaid observation of this Court has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of this case. (GG) BECAUSE the Delhi High Court too had in 2007 approved the following view enumerated in Para 2 of its Verdict dated 14.12.2007 given in Daya Sapra Vs. (GG) BECAUSE the Delhi High Court too had in 2007 approved the following view enumerated in Para 2 of its Verdict dated 14.12.2007 given in Daya Sapra Vs. Vishnu Dutt Sharma (Copy is enclosed) as - In para 13 of his publication, George Spencer Bower has following to write: 13. The applicability of the rule both to civil and criminal proceedings, both to decisions of courts of record and to those of other judicial tribunals, and both to English and to foreign res judicata, is justified by, and rests upon, the same theoretical basis of public policy and private justice. 6. Since in its applicability, the twin aspects of res judicata stifle the second action, the identity of the subject matter of the previous decision assumes significance. On the identity of the subject matter, in Chapter VI George Spencer Bower opines: 184. It is of the essence of all estoppels that there shall be two statements of the same fact exhibiting inter se an essential contradiction or discrepancy; the result of the application of the doctrine of estoppel is always that the earlier statement is to be taken as the truth, precluding an assertion of the later. There can be no estoppel per rem judicator unless a substantial discrepancy is shown to exist between the res judicata and the case set up in the subsequent proceedings; and no such discrepancy can be shown to exist unless these two relate to the same subject matter. 12. Inspite of opportunity given, learned counsel for the petitioners has not informed whether any appeal is pending qua the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 119/2004 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. Even though from perusal of the paper book, it is discernible that vide judgment dated 29.3.2007 Annexure-9, respondent no.2 Ramswarup Yadav alongwith his father Sita Ram Yadav, Bhanwar Lal and Smt. Ganga Devi were tried by the court of Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur and the said court on 29.3.2007 vide Annexure-9 acquitted accused Bhanwar Lal and Smt. Ganga Devi of offences under Sections 148, 341, 323 and 307 IPC; accused Sitaram Yadav and Ramswarup Yadav were also acquitted of offences under Sections 148, 341 and 323 IPC; however, Sitaram Yadav and Ramswarup Yadav were convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them to undergo three year RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional three months SI. 13. It can be well assumed that the respondent no.2 Ramswarup Yadav and his father Sita Ram Yadav have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by filing an appeal in this Court. 14. As to how the case and a counter case should be dealt with by the courts, Supreme Court dealt with the issue in Sudhir and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2001) AIR SC 826 and taking the entire gamut into consideration observed as under:- "8. It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. Such two different versions of the same incident resulting in two criminal cases are compendiously called "case and counter case" by some High Courts and "cross cases" by some other High Courts. Way back in nineteen hundred and twenties a Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Waller, and Cornish, JJ) made a suggestion (In Re Goriparthi Krishtamma - 1929 Madras Weekly Notes 881) that "a case and counter case arising out of the same affair should always, if practicable, be tried by the same court, and each party would represent themselves as having been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other." 9. Close to its heels Jackson, J, made an exhortation to the then legislature to provide a mechanism as a statutory provision for trial of both cases by the same court (vide Krishna Pannadi vs. Emperor, (1930) AIR Madras 190 : 1930 (31) CrLJ 461. The learned judge said thus: "There is no clear law as regards the procedure in counter cases, a defect which the legislature ought to remedy. It is a generally recognized rule that such cases should be tried in quick succession by the same Judge, who should not pronounce judgment till the hearing of both cases is finished." 10. We are unable to understand why the legislature is still parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a statutory requirement in the Code. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross cases shall be tried by the same court, can be summarised thus: (1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross cases shall be tried by the same court, can be summarised thus: (1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court. (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts; and (3) In reality the case and the counter case are, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident. 11. In fact, many High Courts have reiterated the need to follow the said practice as a necessary legal requirement for preventing conflicting decisions regarding one incident. This court has given its approval to the said practice in Nathi Lal and Others vs. State of U.P. & Another, (1990) Supp1 SCC 145. The procedure to be followed in such a situation has been succinctly delineated in the said decision and it can be extracted here: "We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other. (Emphasis supplied)" 15. In the present case, it was incumbent for the petitioners or for respondent no.2 to approach the court at appropriate time for praying that the proceedings be kept in abeyance and both the cases i.e. version and cross version should be tried separately and simultaneously to ward off emergence of conflicting findings. (Emphasis supplied)" 15. In the present case, it was incumbent for the petitioners or for respondent no.2 to approach the court at appropriate time for praying that the proceedings be kept in abeyance and both the cases i.e. version and cross version should be tried separately and simultaneously to ward off emergence of conflicting findings. But, in the present case, no such course was adopted, hence, at this stage the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed and nor can be kept in abeyance. Therefore, a direction is issued to the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur Metropolitan to conclude the trial arising out of Cr. Case No. 619/2016 arising out of FIR No. 120/2004 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, as expeditiously as possible. 16. Till conclusion of the trial, hearing of appeal arising out of FIR No.119/2004 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, shall be kept in abeyance by this Court. After conclusion of the trial arising out of Cr. Case No. 619/2016, if any appeal is filed, after institution of the same in the court of competent Appellate jurisdiction, the said appeal shall be transferred to this Court and shall be decided alongwith Criminal Appeal arising out of judgment Annexure-9 rendered on 29.3.2007 by Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases) Jaipur City, in case said appeal is pending. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of.