The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 544 OF 2024 Pravat @ Ranjan Dehury and another …. Petitioner(s) Mr. B. S. Das, Advocate State of Odisha -versus-
Legal Reasoning
…. Opposite Party(s) Mr. P. K. Maharaj, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 19.03.2024 Heard. There are two cross F.I.Rs. in Banarpal P.S. Case No.38 of Order No. 01. 1. 2. 2017, the Petitioner No.1 is the informant whereas in Banarpal P.S. Case No.39 of 2017, the Petitioners are the accused. 3. The trial of the case where the F.I.R. lodged against the Petitioners namely Banarpal P.S. Case No.39 of 2017 is at an advance stage whereas the F.I.R. in which the Petitioner No.1 is the informant namely Banarpal P.S. Case No.38 of 2017, the trial is yet to begin. 4. When the matter stood thus, the Petitioners moved an application before the learned Court below in the later F.I.R. in Page 1 of 5 Banarpal P.S. Case No.38 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.322 of 2017 inter alia seeking clubbing of both the cases arising out of the same incident and being the cross case. The learned trial Court rejected the application inter alia stating as under:- is decided without <10.01.2024 The case record is put up today. The Ld counsel for both the parties are present. At this stage the Ld counsel for the accused files a petition for clubbing of the case with its counter case bearing no GR 322/2017 for analogous hearing. Copy served on Ld APP and the same has been objected by him. The Ld counsel for the accused submits that the if the instant case, GR 323/2017 analogous hearing/trial with GR Case 322/2017, then the accused persons in that case will be prejudiced and also there will be loss of public money and time in deciding that case. On perusal of the case record, it reveals that the case is lingering for defence evidence since 07.08.2023. So in my opinion at this stage, the petition of accused will prejudice the parties. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this petition stands rejected. Supply free copy if applied for in proper form. Put up on 29.01.2024 for defence evidence.= 5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners relies upon the judgment in the case of Sudhir & Ors. Etc. vrs. State of M.P. Etc. reported in (2001) 2 SCC 688 in paragraphs-9, 11 and 12 reads as under:- <9. 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 Page 2 of 5 a in two cases criminal suggestion resulting 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 (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=. 11. 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 summaries 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. 12. 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 & ors. vs. State of U.P. & anr (1990 (Supp) SCC 145). The procedure to be followed in such a situation has been succinetly 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 the cross case and after proceed to hear Page 3 of 5 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.= 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since both the F.I.Rs are arising out of the same incident and being cross cases, the trial ought to have been proceeded analogously and the trial Court has wrongly rejected the prayer made by him. 7. Taking into consideration the facts scenario of the present case and the judgment cited at the Bar, I am of the considered view that the trial of the Banarpal P.S. Case No.39 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.323 of 2017 which is at advance stage shall proceed at its own pace, however, the trial Court should not pronounce the final judgment. Insofar as the trial of the Banarpal P.S. Case No.38 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.322 of 2017 is concerned, the trial Court should do well to see that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period Page 4 of 5 of six months hence and the final judgment of both the cases should be pronounced simultaneously. 8. The CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Mar-2024 11:27:35 Page 5 of 5