bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 1985 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1985 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1985 OF 2008 Mr.Fakruddin G. Patel & anr. ... Applicants v/s The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Meghashyam Kocharekar for the applicants. Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 2ND JULY, 2008 2ND JULY, 2008 2ND JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The criminal application is directed against the orders passed by the Sessions Court directing an amalgamation of the Sessions Case No.1328 of 1996 along with Sessions Case No.484 of 1998 by the order dated 14.1.2008. The application also challenges the order passed by the Sessions Court in Misc. Application No.8 of 2008 rejecting the application for discharge. 2. The applicants are accused Nos.2 and 3 before the Court of Sessions in respect of Sessions Case No.1328 of 1996. They have allegedly committed offences under Sections 498, 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2 Accused No.1 has also been charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C. after the investigations were carried out by the police. Thus, the amalgamation of both these trials, in my opinion, cannot be sustained. The offences punishable under Sections 302 and 306 of the I.P.C. are contradictory to each other. If an offence punishable under Section 302 has been committed, then the offence under Section 306 could obviously not have been committed. By amalgamating these trials, the accused have been charged for committing murder and have at the same time been charged for abetting the victims suicide. These charges cannot co-exist in my opinion. 3. Therefore, the order amalgamating the two trials is unsustainable and must be quashed and set aside. 4. The discharge application of accused Nos.2 and 3 has been dismissed since, according to the Sessions Court, they were facing a trial where they were charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C., besides the alleged involvement under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 5. The order of an amalgamation is set aside. Accused Nos.2 and 3 can apply for discharge in the proceedings pending against them i.e. Criminal Case No.1328 of 3 1996.