Cross-cases shall be tried by one and the same court: Allahabad High Court

 A.F.R Court No. 85 Case : APPLICATION U S 482 No. 202421 Applicant : Pradeep Kumar Dubey Opposite Party : State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant : Radhey Shyam Shukla Vipul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party : G.A Hon ble Gautam Chowdhary J Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of impugned order dated 16.8.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 2914arising out of Case Crime No. 1114 under Sections 147 148 149 302 504 506 307 452 I.P.C. Police Station Mirzapur District Shahjahanpur and further to connect cross complaint case no.11219under section 147 148 307 323 506 I.P.C. Police Station Mirzapur District Shahjahanpur and decide both the cases simultaneously. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that no useful purpose would be served in issuing notice to opposite party No. 2 and keeping this application pending before this Court and the same may be disposed of. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the F.I.R. lodged by the informant regarding some dispute in between the parties in respect of house for which the litigation is going on before the civil court. It is argued that some quarrel took place in between the parties in which both the persons of the parties received some injuries and one Ajay Kumar alias Kallu died. Further submission is that cross version of the same incident has been lodged by a complaint after moving of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Contention is that the case in which F.I.R. was lodged is attaining finality and on the other hand the complaint case is at initial stage before the court below. Submission is that both the cases may be clubbed together and be heard together so that it may cause no prejudice to the justice. Placing reliance upon the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1990 SCC638 and in the case of Sudhir and others Vs. Sate of M.P. made a suggestion Goriparthi Krishtamma In re: 1929 MWN 881 that "a case and counter case arising out of the same affair should always if practicable be tried by the same court and each party would represent themselves as having been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other". 10. We are unable to understand why the legislature is still parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a statutory requirement in the Code. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross cases shall be tried by the same court can be summarised thus It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court.It deters conflicting judgements being delivered upon similar facts.In reality the case and the counter case to all intents and purposes different or conflicting versions of one incident 18. In the present case the Sessions Judge ought not have transferred the second case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as he did but he himself should have tried it in the manner indicated in Nathi Lal No.40000 and set aside the order of the High Court as well as the order passed by the Sessions Court by which the case was transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. We direct the Sessions Court concerned to try and dispose of the first case and the second case in the manner set out in Nathi Lal s caseNo.3840 of 2000 will In view of the aforesaid legal position the judgement and order dated 16.8.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1 Shahjahanpur is set aside. Learned Judge is directed to decide both the sessions trial together and not to pronounce the judgment in Case Crime No.1114 at this stage. However it is provided that evidence recorded in one case should not be read in another and each case must be decide on its own merit. With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed of. Order Date : 26.10.2021

Summary: Cross-cases or counter-cases are two different of the same incident, resulting in two criminal cases. Therefore, they should be tried by the same court to avoid technical and other difficulties arising out of the order of one. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble Justice Gautam Chowdhary in the matter of  Pradeep Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. &amp; Anr [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 20241 of 2021]. 
The facts of the case were that some dispute arose between the parties in respect of house for which litigation is pending before the civil court. Meanwhile, some quarrel took place between the parties in which both sides incurred injuries, and one Ajay Kumar Alias Kallu died. Thus, cross-version of the same incident was filed under section 156(3) were filed.

The Hon’ble High Court took into view the judgment held in Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1990 SCC (Cri) 638 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and said that when two criminal cases relating to the same incident are in play, then they both are tried and disposed of by the same court. Additionally, the Hon’ble High court observed that “We are unable to understand why the legislature is still parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a statutory requirement in the Code. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross cases shall be tried by the same court can be summarised thus (1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court. (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts. (3) In reality the case and the counter-case, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident.”

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and directed the concerned session court to try and dispose of the cases in the manner set out in the Nathi lal case(Supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the case were that some dispute arose between the parties in respect of house for which litigation is pending before the civil court. Meanwhile, some quarrel took place between the parties in which both sides incurred injuries, and one Ajay Kumar Alias Kallu died. Thus, cross-version of the same incident was filed under section 156(3) were filed. 
The Hon’ble High Court took into view the judgment held in Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1990 SCC (Cri) 638 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and said that when two criminal cases relating to the same incident are in play, then they both are tried and disposed of by the same court. Additionally, the Hon’ble High court observed that “We are unable to understand why the legislature is still parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a statutory requirement in the Code. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross cases shall be tried by the same court can be summarised thus (1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court. (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts. (3) In reality the case and the counter-case, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident.”

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and directed the concerned session court to try and dispose of the cases in the manner set out in the Nathi lal case(Supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble High Court took into view the judgment held in Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1990 SCC (Cri) 638 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and said that when two criminal cases relating to the same incident are in play, then they both are tried and disposed of by the same court. Additionally, the Hon’ble High court observed that “We are unable to understand why the legislature is still parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a statutory requirement in the Code. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross cases shall be tried by the same court can be summarised thus (1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court. (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts. (3) In reality the case and the counter-case, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident.” 
Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and directed the concerned session court to try and dispose of the cases in the manner set out in the Nathi lal case(Supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and directed the concerned session court to try and dispose of the cases in the manner set out in the Nathi lal case(Supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.