Quashed

Shiv Bachan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024A482/9345/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad quashed an order rejecting an application to club two cross criminal cases arising from a dispute over land, directing the trial court to try them together as required for cross cases with submitted charge-sheets.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; direction to assign both cross cases to one court for joint trial and to conclude trial.

Shiv Bachan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73362

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9345 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shiv Bachan And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the instant application, the applicants sought following reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) To quash the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C.- II, Ayodhya in Session Trial No. 31/2023 (State Vs. Shiv Bachan & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 195/2021 under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station- Mahrajganj, DistrictFaizabad/Ayodhya.

¶9

(ii) To stay the further criminal proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 31/2023 and a suitable direction may also be issued to learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Ayodhya to conclude/decide the trial proceedings of Sessions Trial No.31/2023 as well as Criminal Case No.1136/2021 (State Versus Avinash Kumar & Others) arising out of the Case Crime No.196/2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahrajganj, DistrictAyodhya."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a quarrel was taken place between the parties due to some land dispute, in which, members of both sides received injuries. Thereafter, cross cases were lodged as F.I.R. No. 195 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 308, 506 I.P.C. by complainant of the present case/private respondent against the applicants and as F.I.R. No. 196 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. by one Jailal (one of the applicants) against the private respondent and others. After investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 143, 147, 308, 323, 504, 506, 324, 452 I.P.C. was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the F.I.R. No. 195 of 2021 and another charge-sheet under Sections 323, 325, 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. was also submitted by the Investigating Officer in another aforesaid F.I.R. No. 196 of 2021.

¶11

It is further submitted that it is well settled proposition of law that in

¶12

case there are cross cases, then trial of both the cases should be run together.

¶13

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the Case of Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P. reported in (2001) 2 SCC 688 and on the decision of this Court passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2312 of 2024 dated 12.03.2024 .

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that the application was moved before learned trial Court for passing an order for concluding the trial of aforesaid two cases collectively, but the said application was rejected in the most mechanical manner on 21.08.2024, therefore, indulgence of this Court is required.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. However, he does not dispute on the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P. (supra) .

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleading, the impugned order, aforesaid F.I.R. Nos. 195 of 2021 and 196 of 2021 (supra) as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that there are cross cases and in both the cases, charge-sheets have already been submitted by the Investigating Officer, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Court to club the trial of the aforesaid cases for trying them together.

¶17

Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C.- II, Ayodhya in Session Trial No. 31/2023 is hereby quashed with direction to learned Sessions Judge to pass an order for clubbing the trial of aforesaid both cases by assigning them to one Court.

¶18

It is also expected from the trial Court to conclude the trial of aforesaid both cases in accordance with law.

¶19

With above directions, the present application is disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Arpan

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Bachan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Bachan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sumit Kumar Jaiswal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Babu Ahmad and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko and Another

Chhotu @ Deepak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shashank Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Yusuf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Guddi Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others