IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1167 of 2009() ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- RAJESH R., S/O.K.C.RAJAN, AGED 25 YEARS, KALLANKODE HOUSE, VALATHALA, N.S.S.COLLEGE P.O., NENMARA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUJITH, S/O.MUTHUMANI, KUNNAKKAD VEEDU, THENKURUSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SHAJIKUTTAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MANGODE VEEDU, MAAHAALIKUDAM, THENKURISSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. PRAKASHAN, S/O.KUNCHELAN, MELAYIL VEEDU, ANAPPARA, KOTTEKADU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. BABU, S/O.CHERUKUTTY, MUTHESSENKADU, MAHALIKUDAM, THENKURISSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. SUVARNAN, S/O.CHAMUNNI, KUNNAKKAD VEEDU, THENKURUSSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. RATHEESH, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, ULLATHUVEEDU, PUTHUR ROAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. SUDEESH, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, KATTILVEEDU, ANAPPARA, KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 9. BHAVADAS, S/O.DEVADAS, KATTILVEEDU, ANAPPARA, KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 10. MUKESH, S/O.MANIKKAN, MELAYIL VEEDU, ANAPPARA, KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 11. FEBIN, S/O.MUTHUMANI, AGED 25 YEARS, KUNNUKAD VEEDU, THENKURISSI, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R11 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1167 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 30th November 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the de facto complainant on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions court, Palakkad. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to Assistant Sessions Judge to adjourn or stay the trial till the private complaint pending enquiry before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur is committed to the Sessions court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. Argument of the learned counsel is that as the case is now pending before the Magistrate it is to be committed to the sessions court and if committed, both are to be tried one after other and so a direction is to be issued to the Assistant Sessions court, Palakkad to adjourn the trial till then or to stay the trial of S.C.1177/2005. 3. When there is a main case and a counter case in respect of the incident, disclosing Crmc 1167/09 2 conflicting versions there cannot be a joint trial of both the cases. But it is to be tried by the same Judge, one after the other, with the precaution that evidence in one case shall not be looked into in the other case. When the complaint case is not even committed to the Sessions court, Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Palakkad cannot be directed to try that case along with S.C.1177/2005. If the case is committed, Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Palakkad has to try S.C.1177/2005 and committed the case one after the other. As and when the case is committed, petitioner is at liberty to bring it to the notice of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, so that both cases could be tried one after the other. I find it not necessary to give any other direction at this stage. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.