Harjit Singh vs Hari Singh and Others

Amol Rattan Singh, J.—In this case, petitioner was seeking a direction to the trial court that it should expedite the proceedings in criminal complaint No. 124 of 2008, i.e. Harjeet Singh Vs. Hari Singh & others, lodged with the said court on the 5th August, 2008, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 148 & 149 of the IPC. His contention was based on the fact that the said complaint was a cross version of the complaint resulting into FIR No. 119 dated 8.6.2008, registered under Sections 324, 323, 295 read with Section 34 of the IPC at Police Station Sadar, District Abhor. As such, learned counsel has submitted that though, in the complaint case, preliminary evidence was closed on 17.5.2010 and no progress was made thereafter, in the FIR case registered on the 8th June, 2008, evidence had already been closed and the matter was listed for arguments on the 12th July, 2013. At that stage, he had, therefore, sought that without proceeding further in the complaint case, the learned trial court should be restrained from deciding the case arising out of the FIR. I have seen the trial court records, which have been received pursuant to the last order of this Court. Be that as it may, learned counsel has today relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court, in the cases of Nathilal v. State of U. P. and Sudhir Vs. State of M.P., 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Cri) 743, to submit that the judgment in one case cannot be pronounced, when a cross version is also pending.

In Nathi Lal''s case (supra) the Supreme Court held as under:-

We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other.

We allow this appeal partly to the aforesaid extent and direct the learned Judge to proceed with the police case and the cross case instituted by the respondent-complainant by way of a private complaint and hold the trial in both the matters in the light of the directions given hereinabove. Learned Judge will accord priority to these cross cases and dispose of both the cases expeditiously.

The same direction, relying upon in Nathi Lal''s case, was given by their Lordships in Sudhir Vs. State of M.P. (supra) also.

In view of the above, the trial court would proceed with the case arising of the FIR and, after hearing the arguments, reserve judgment and, thereafter, proceed with the complaint case and come to its conclusion and decide both of them as per the procedure laid down in the above mentioned cases, decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above directions, which shall be conveyed to the learned trial court immediately.