CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Bhadar Ram and Others vs State and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 25 January 2008 · Citation: (2008) 01 RAJ CK 0005

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S. Rathore, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1838 of 2007
Ask AI about this case

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

7 paragraphs · 347 words

K.S. Rathore, J.—This criminal misc. petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 17.08.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class Rawatsar, District-Hanumangarh whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application moved u/s 220 of Cr.P.C.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that the complainant Mansaram lodged two FIR(s) bearing No.377/04 for the offence u/s 432, 143 of IPC & Section 3 of PDPP Act and another FIR No.378/04 for the offence u/s 447,143 of IPC at Police Station-Rawatsar against the petitioners. Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet before the concerned court and now the petitioners are facing the trial in criminal Regular Case No. 179/2005 and 180/2005 respectively before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Rawatsar, Distt-Hanumangarh.

3.

The petitioner moved an application u/s 220 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that two FIR(s) have been registered against the petitioners by the complainant-Mansaram are the result of the same occurrence. Therefore, both the cases be consolidated and hearing of both the cases be consolidated for the convenience of all the parties.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by Patna High Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Simranjit Singh, . The Patna High Court has held that commission of several offences in same transaction, all offences should be tried together.

5.

Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of order impugned dated 17.08.2007 passed by the court below, it is not disputed that the complainant is same in both the FIR(s) lodged against the petitioners. The court below has not considered the application u/s 220 of Cr.P.C. properly, moved on behalf of petitioners and rejected the same.

6.

Consequently, the criminal misc. petition stands allowed and the order impugned dated 17.08.2007 passed by the court below is hereby quashed and set aside and both the cases (Crl. Case No. 179/05 & Crl. Case No. 180/05) be consolidated for the purpose of hearing.

The stay petition also stands disposed of.