CRM No. M 30584 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 30584 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.01.2011 Manjit Kaur ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. A K Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab Mr. Adarsh Malik, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) CRM No. 1014 of 2011 Learned counsel for the parties agree that the main petition should be disposed of today itself. Accordingly, the main case is being taken for hearing today and the present application is disposed of. Main case This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of appropriate order or direction to the learned CRM No. M 30584 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Sessions Judge, Patiala for clubbing criminal complaint No. 72 dated 15.12.2008 titled as Manjit Kaur v Jasbir Kaur and others pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala with the Sessions Trial case FIR No. 348 dated 01.08.2008 under Section 302, 307 of Indian Penal Code, P S Kotwali Patiala pending in the Court of Shri Paramjit Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in accordance with provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C and quashing the impugned orders dated 11.02.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The only arguments raised by the learned counsel for respondents is that the evident in the State case is complete and the matter has already been argued and the judgment has been reserved. Learned counsel the petitioner has vehemently opposed the said factual position and stated that vide order dated 30.10.2009 passing of final order in the FIR case was stayed. No doubt, subsequently, vide order dated 17.10.2010, the aforesaid interim order was vacated on account of the absence of the counsel for the petitioner, the fact remains that he has already moved an application for amendment of the charge, in which, notice has already been issued for 04.02.2011. The facts in short are that FIR No. 348 was registered on 01.08.2008 under Section 302, 307 IPC on the statement of the petitioner. It is contended that since the police did not record the version of the petitioner correctly and only named one person in the FIR inspite of the fact that other persons were attributed incriminating role, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint. The petitioner led his preliminary evidence and on the basis of the same, respondents No. 2 to 7 have been summoned. CRM No. M 30584 of 2009 (O&M) 3 It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the police case as well as the version in the criminal complaint is identical. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case Harjinder Singh v State of Punjab and others reported as 1985 (1) RCR (Criminal) 289 as well as judgment rendered by this Court rendered in the case of Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab etc. reported as 2206(4) RCR (Criminal) 230, to substantiate his argument that both the complaint and the sessions case arising out of the police report should be decided together in order to avoid contradictory judgments. Nothing contrary has been pointed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Courts below are directed to consolidate complaint No. 72 dated 15.12.2008 titled as Manjit Kaur v Jasbir Kaur and others, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala with Sessions Trial case FIR No. 348 dated 01.08.2008 under Section 302, 307 of Indian Penal Code, P S Kotwali Patiala pending in the Court of Shri Paramjit Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The concerned Court shall, after consolidating the aforesaid cases, try them together in accordance with the provisions of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the final order shall be pronounced only after completing the evidence in the complaint case. Disposed of accordingly. . (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 28.01.2011 mohan