IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 909 of 2011 with Stay Application No. 1198 of 2011 Vivek Kumar khanna @ Jugla S/o Shri Kailash Chand Khanna R/o Mohalla Shekhpura Kankhal P.S. Kankhal, District Hardwar ………………..petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Rajendra Prasad Rayal S/o Shri Chandi Prasad Rayal R/o Village Nepali Farm P.O Satyanarayan , District Dehradun 3. M.R.Dugtal S/o Late Shri Mani Ram Dugtal Circle Officer Kalyan Ganj, Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh 4. N.C. Johri S/o Shri Jagdish Sahai presently posted as P.S. Sarsa District Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh) ………….Respondents Shri B.M.Pingal, Advocate, present for the petitioner Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.04.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ IIIrd Fast Track Court,. Hardwar, in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1997, whereby said court has refused to consolidate Sessions Trial Nos. 13 of 1997 with 415 of 2008, 92 of 2010 and 90 of 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the trial relates to the same incident, and should be tried together. (3) However, perusal of the impugned order shows that two of the Sessions Trial No. are already stayed , and the others Sessions Trial Nos. 14 of 1997, 15 of 1997 and 16 of 1997 are already consolidated with Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1997. Not only this even Sessions Trial No. 332 of 1999 is also consolidated with the above four Sessions Trials. In the circumstances, the trial court took the view that in already old cases if the application of the petitioner is allowed, it is likely to cause further delay in the trial of the cases. 3 (4) In the above circumstances, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the State, and after going through the impugned order, this court does not find any illegality committed by the trial court in rejecting the application of complainant (present petitioner) to consolidate all the cases, as it is likely to delay the trial of the cases which are not stayed. (5) Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 1198 of 2011 stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.10.10.2011 N.P