CRM No. M 22752 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 22752 of 2008 Date of decision: 09.03.2010 Darshan Singh ........ Petitioner Versus Sukhdev Singh and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P S Brar, Advocate for the respondents -.- 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. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 02.08.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga in a complaint No. 82/3-06 titled as Darshan Singh v. Sukhdev Singh and others with a further prayer to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga to commit the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Moga where another trial is pending against the petitioner on the same cause of action. Facts of the case are that on 10.01.2006, when the petitioner was present in his house at Village Safuwala, all the respondents armed with CRM No. M 22752 of 2008 2 sota entered into the house of the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 raised lalkara that Darshan Singh may be taught lesson for not transferring his land in her name. Then all the respondents namely Sukhdev Singh, Daljit Singh, Gurprit Singh, Pritpal Singh and Harbans Kaur caused injuries to the petitioner with their respective weapons which hit the petitioner on head, thigh and arm. They also scattered all house articles of the house of the petitioner. The petitioner raised alarm and on hearing the noise, many people from the neighbourhood i.e. Gurnek Singh son of Sardara Singh Mohinder Kaur wife of Surjit Singh, Gurtej Singh son of Pakhar Singh and others came into the house of the petitioner and rescued the petitioner from the respondents and during that scuffle, respondent No. 6 received some injuries. After that all the respondents fled away from there with their weapons. Then Gurnek Singh got the petitioner admitted in Civil Hospital, Darol Bhai and the petitioner was medico legally examined and the injuries were also x-rayed. In the hospital, police came on same day and the petitioner narrated the whole occurrence to the police but the police did not record any statement but got the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers. That when the petitioner was discharged from the hospital, the petitioner came to know that police had registered a false case against the petitioner, his wife and his son under section 406/498-A/323/34 IPC but did not take any action against the respondents for the injuries caused to the petitioner. That left with no other remedy, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 452, 323, 148, 149 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. After recording the preliminary evidence, the respondents were summoned vide summoning order dated 23.04.2007. Meanwhile, the CRM No. M 22752 of 2008 3 challan in the above said FIR registered against the petitioner, his wife and son was presented and the said case was committed to the Court of Mrs. Amarjot Bhatti, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. The said trial is still pending in the above said Court. Since both the cases arise out the same occurrence, the petitioner moved an application with a prayer that the complaint case is a cross case and so to avoid conflict in decision, the present complaint be committed to the Sessions Court along with the said case. However, the said application was dismissed on the ground that the State case is at the evidence stage. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, opposed the same on the ground that they are two different incidents and therefore these cannot be clubbed together. In this regard reference was made to the judgement of this Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 1996 (1) RCC 266, wherein reference was placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder singh v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 404, which reads as under:- “In Harjinder Singh's case (supra) the facts were somewhat similar to the present case. In that case, a case was fixed on the police report under Sections 302, 307, 342, 440, 149, 148 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Another case was instituted against the said accused along with some other persons upon a private complaint. Both the cases were committed CRM No. M 22752 of 2008 4 to the Court of Sessions for trial. After discussing the law and correct interpretation of Sections 210 and 223 of the Code, the Supreme Court held as under: “The proper course to adopt is to direct that the two cases should be tried together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but not consolidated i.e. evidence should be recorded separately in both the cases one after the other except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution who are common to both the cases be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should, after recording the evidence of the prosecuting witnesses in one case, withhold his judgement and then proceed to record the evidence of the prosecution in the other case. Thereafter he shall proceed to simultaneously dispose of the cases by two separate judgements taking care that the judgement in one case is not based on the evidence recorded in the other case.” Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The incident is of the same date i.e. 10.01.2006. The parties are same. Just because time has not been mentioned in the complaint, it does not mean that the allegations do not arise out of the same incident or that it is a cross case. One of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that State case is at the evidence stage and thus both the cases cannot be tried together. The said objection can be taken care of by CRM No. M 22752 of 2008 5 directing the present petitioner to complete their evidence as soon as possible preferably within three months. Moreover, it would be in the interest of justice and in all fairness that these two cases are heard by the same Court. As a result of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed with direction that both the cases be tried together but not consolidated i.e. evidence be recorded separately in both the cases and dispose of the same by two separate judgements while taking care that judgement in one case is not based on the evidence recorded in the other case as observed in the case of Ranjit Singh 's case (supra). The present petitioner shall complete their evidence as soon as possible preferably within three months so that the decision in the criminal case filed by the respondents herein is not held back on account of the pendency of the present case in dispute. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge March 09, 2010 mohan