Manphool and Others vs The State

A.H. Khan, J.—This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, recommending to the High Court that a complaint filed by Bajranglal in respect of an offence u/s 307, IPC and a challan submitted in respect of the same offence by the Police may be amalgamated and the cases be tried jointly. In support of this recommendation the learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon decisions reported in Bharat Kishore Lal Singh Deo Vs. Judhistir Modak, U Po Yone v. Emperor AIR 1933 Rang 271 and Mukania and Another Vs. Achalia and Others,

On referring to the record I find that Bajranglal complainant filed a complaint against 15 persons and the Magistrate after recording the evidence u/s 202, Cr.PC. found that there was prima facie case against six persons, namely, Virbal, Bihari, Shishupal, Kandiya, Gangadhar and Gyasiya and he fixed the date for further proceedings against these six persons. Subsequent to the filing of this private complaint, in respect of the same matter, the Police filed a Challan u/s 307, IPC against five persons, namely, Bihari, Shishupal, Gyasiya, Ramchand and Manphool. Of these Bihari, Shishupal, Gyasiya, are common accused in the complaint and the Challan. All the accused filed an application before the trial Court that both the complaint case and the Challan of the Police should be tried together. The Magistrate rejected this application against which the accused filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who has referred the case to the High Court.

I think the Magistrate is justified in holding an enquiry separately for two reasons:

First, that the inquiry in the complaint case will be held u/s 203 of the Cr.PCode, whereas the inquiry in the case challaned by the Police will be held u/s 207A of the Cr.PCode. The two procedures are different and if both the cases are amalgamated, the question will Le under which of the two pncedures the inquiry should be held.

Two, in the event the accused are eventually tried and acquitted, the complainant will have a right of appeal u/s 417 (3) of the Cr.PCode. Thus it is for good reasons that the inquiry is being held separately.

The cases referred to in the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge were cases decided by the High Court before the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1955 (Act No. 26 of 1955). It is therefore unnecessary to examine them.

For reasons stated above, the reference is disallowed.