Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 201 (MP)

Nawab Kha v. State of M. P.

2025-03-19

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2025
ORDER 1. This application under s.482 of Cr.P.c./S.528 of BNSS has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- ^^vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd vkosnd dk vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vkns'k fnukad 29-1-2016 l=okn Øekad 340@2014 U;k;ky; r`rh; vij l= U;k;kèkh'k xquk ,oa vkns'k fnukad 28-4-2018 l=okn Øekad 128@2017 U;k;ky; f}rh; vij l= U;k;kèkh'k xquk e-ç- }kjk nh xà ltkv¨a d¨ lkFk lkFk pyk, tkus dh Ñik djsa ,oa vkns'k dh çfr d¢Uæh; tsy Xokfy;j esa dEiykÃl gsrq Òsth tkosA^^ The moot question for consideration is as to whether application under s.482 of Cr.P.C. for direction to run two separate sentences concurrently is maintainable or not ? 2. Counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shersingh v. State of M.P. ( 1989 MPLJ 116 ) and pleaded that application under s.482 of Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid purpose is maintainable. Counsel for applicant has also relied upon judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hanumandas Baba @ Hemraj @ Guru Nathuram v. State of M.P. and another decided on 17.12.2009 in M.Cr.C. No.49602/2019. 3. Heard, learned counsel for applicant. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of M.R.Kudva v. State of A.P. reported in (2007)2 SCC 772 has held as under:- "12. However, in this case the provision of section 427 of the Code was not invoked in the original cases or in the appeals. A separate application was filed before the High Court after the special leave petitions were dismissed. Such an application, in our opinion, was not maintainable. The High Court could not have exercised its inherent jurisdiction in a case of this nature as it had not exercised such jurisdiction while passing the judgments in appeal. Section 482 of the Code was, therefore, not an appropriate remedy having regard to the fact that neither the trial Judge, nor the High Court while passing the judgments of conviction and sentence indicated that the sentences passed against the appellant in both the cases shall run concurrently or Section 427 would be attracted. The said provision, therefore, could not be applied in a separate and independent proceeding by the High Court. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed." 5. The said provision, therefore, could not be applied in a separate and independent proceeding by the High Court. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed." 5. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by order dated 25.7.2023 passed in the case of Ramandeeep Singh v. State of Punjab and another (CRM-M-45666-2021) after taking note of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Kuduwa (Supra), as well as, judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shersingh (Supra) has also held that separate application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for direction to run different sentences concurrently, is not maintainable. 6. Thus, if applicant was of the view that he can seek a direction for running of two different sentences concurrently, then he should have made a prayer at the time of final disposal of criminal appeal. However, by instituting separate independent proceedings, the said relief cannot be granted. 7. Accordingly, application is dismissed as not maintainable.