RAJU Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kulithalai to commit the case in CC No.82 of 2016 on his file to the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Cum Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai and order for Joint trial along with SC No.83 of 2016.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 30.05.2016 the respondents 2 to 5 herein abused the petitioner in filthy language, assaulted him and also threatened him with dire consequences. Due to this occurrence the petitioner lodged a complaint before the respondent police and based on which the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 158 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 294(b) , 323 , 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. Thereafter the respondent police completed investigation and also filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai and the same has been taken cognizance in CC No. 82 of 2016 and it is pending trial.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit submit that based on the complaint given by the second respondent against the petitioner, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 157 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 307 of IPC against the petitioner and others. Since the offences are triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the case is pending trial in S.C.No. 83 of 2016 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kulithalai. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that both cases arises out of one and the same transaction and that they are either case and counter cases or cross cases. In cross cases when one of the case involves offence exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, then under Section 323 of Cr.P.C the jurisdictional Magistrate should commit both cases for trial to the Court of Sessions. The fair procedure to adopt in matter like the present case is the same Judge himself should try both the cross cases one after another and that after recording the evidence of one case is completed he must hear arguments and he must reserve judgments. Thereafter he may proceed to hear cross case and after recording of the evidence he must hear arguments to reserve judgments in that case. The same Judge must thereafter dispose of matter by two separate judgments. In Support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Lal and other Vs. State of U.P and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 145 and also the judgement of this Court in Ganesan and another -vs- The Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in 2011(5)CTC 747 i