AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 275 wordsM.M. Punchhi, J.
This revision petition has been preferred by an accused who crossly had instituted a complaint against other persons who stated on the prosecution side. He applied to the trial Magistrate that his complaint be heard with the challan case in which he was the accused and which was in the nature of a cross case. The learned trial Magistrate declined the prayer, vide the impugned order, dated 25.9.1982 which has given rise to the present petition.
In the First Information Report, the complainant and a few other have been arraigned as the accused. Apparently, the complaint carries a different version, contra distinct to the version, of the First Information Report, and is rather in the nature of defence version to the prosecution case in the First Information Report. It would not be wrong to assume that the defence of the accused in the complaint case would be pari materia the same as that contained in the First Information Report. And the mere fact that the two versions are variant as to the time or to the place of occurrence, or to the confinement of the limits thereof, would not render the said two cases anything also than cross cases. The learned counsel for the State has, thus, candidly conceded, that it is fair and proper that both the complaint as well as the challan case be decided by one and the same Court and simultaneously.
In view of statement of the learned counsel for the State as also for propriety and justness, it is ordered, by allowing the present petition, that trials in both these cases be concluded simultaneously.