IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 12232 of 2010 Date of decision: February 16,2011 Malkiat Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. **** ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of a direction to respondent-State for clubbing together the case FIR No.76 dated 1.7.2006 registered under Sections 307, 365, 342, 379, 326, 325, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Ams Act pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and cross case bearing FIR No.76 dated 1.7.2006 under Sections 324, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana pending in the Court of JMIC, Ludhiana. Notice of motion was issued on 28th April, 2010. In response to notice of motion, reply on behalf of the State has been filed which is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid two cases are pending before two different Courts and inconvenience has been caused to both the parties and if these Crl.Misc. No. M- 12232 of 2010 [2] cases are clubbed and tried together, that would be in the interest of both the parties. Learned counsel further submits that FIR No. 76 dated 1st July, 2006 was registered against accused persons as petitioner received multiple injuries and charges in that case have been framed vide order dated 12th June, 2007. The accused party also got registered cross-case bearing FIR No. 76 dated 1st July, 2006 under Section 324/148/149 IPC at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana wherein also, charges have been framed vide order dated 12th July, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that due to administrative ground, the aforesaid two cases were transferred to different Courts and same are pending. One case is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereas the cross-case is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Evidence in both the cases are same and only because of separate offfence, the two cases are pending before two different Courts. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not controverted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the charge-sheet and other documents available on the file. As per case of the prosecution, accused persons attacked the petitioner and inflicted multiple injuries to him and FIR No.76 dated 1st July, 2006 was registered under Sections 307, Crl.Misc. No. M- 12232 of 2010 [3] 365, 342, 379, 326, 325, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Ams Act. The accused party also got registered cross case bearing FIR No. 76 dated 1st July, 2006 under Sections 324/148/149 IPC at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana. One case is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereas corss-case is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and in both the cases charges have been framed . Admittedly, the two cases as mentioned above, are arising out of the same incident and between the same parties. If both the cases are heard together, it would not only be convenient to both the parties but it would be in the interest of both the parties. If one case is concluded earlier and is decided by one Court and the second case is decided by the other Court, there can be any variation between two judgments, so it is desirable that both the cases should be decided by the same Court and judgment should also be pronounced on the same day. This view has been supported by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sudhir v. State of M.P. 2001 SCC (Cri) 387 and Asar Sheikh v. The State of West Bengal 2004 C Cr LR (Cal) 800. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others 1985(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 289 has also held that if two cases are between the same parties, then two cases should be tried together but should not be consolidated i.e. the evidence should be recorded separately in both the cases one after the other except to the extent that witnesses for the prosecution who Crl.Misc. No. M- 12232 of 2010 [4] are common to both the cases be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other. I am of the considered view that in view of the facts mentioned above and the law position, the petition is allowed and learned JMIC before whom counter-case is pending is directed to send the case record to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. After receiving the case file by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, he is directed to proceed with the trial of both the cases simultaneously and deliver judgments of both cases on same day. Let copy of this order be sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for compliance. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 02, 2011 raghav