SHEMBUKUTTY Vs. ANGURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 4B2 Cr. P.C. praying to direct the Principal Seslions Judge, Tirunelveli, to take the case in S.C. 230 of 1985 which is pending before the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, to his file and dispose of the same along witb S.C. No. 174 of 1985 which is pending on his file, on the ground that both cases arose out of the same transaction as case and counter case.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the complainant in Crime No. 619 of 1984 resulting in S.C. 230 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. Respondents 1 to 3 are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 230 of 1985. S.C. 174 of 1985 on the file of the Sessions Judge. Tirunelveli, is the result of the complaint in Cr. No. 678 of 1984 filed by first respondent herein. Both Crime Nos. 678 and 679 of 1984 had been registered by Kovilpatti East Police Station. Both the Crime Numbers had been registered in respect of an occurrence which took place at 1 P.M. 00 30-10- 1984 in Saramari Amman Koil Street, Kovilpatti. This apart, the accused in one case are arrayed as witnesses in the other and vice-vena. Though both the cases appear to be case and counter case, the police did not choose to find out the aggressor and file a case against the aggressor referring the other one. But what the police had done in this case is to file charge-sheet in both the cases. Admittedly, both the cases are pending on the file of different courses, The learned counsel (or the petitioner would contend that if both the cases are tried by different courts, serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the parties and as such interest of justice requires that both the cases should be tried by one and the same court in quick succession and disposed of simultaneously. The learned Public Prosecutor representing the 4th respondents also supports the contention of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would however contend that both the cases should not be taken as case and counter and no serious prejudice is likely to be caused if both the cases are to be tried before different courts. In order to substantiate his contention, he would -state that the occurrence in both the easel took place at different times and at different places, in the sense of one not having any sort of connection with the other. He would draw the attention of the court that the occurrence in Crime No. 679/84 (8 C. 230/85) took place at ] 2 30 P.M. in front of the house of one Chinnaraj, while the occurrence in crime No. 678/84 (S. C. 174/85 took place at 1 P.M. in front of the house of one Gnanam. When he was confronted as to where exactly the house of Chinnaraj and Gnanam were located in the town, he could concede and admit that both the house are located in Saramari Amman Koil Street. Though the time of occurrence in Crime No. 679/84 is found mentioned as 12.30 P.M. in the chargesheet, yet it is worthwhile to note that the time of occurrence as given in the F.I.R. refers to 1 P.M, the exact time at which the occurrence in the other case took place. While deciding the question of the occurrence having taken place in the course of the state transaction, what is important the unity of purpose and not unity of time. The circumstances under which the occurrence took place imple me to come to the conclusion that both the occurrences are the resultant products of the same transaction, resulting in a case and counter case. If both the case and counter case are tried by different courts, serious prejudice would be caused to the cause of justice and, therefore it is that the interest of justice requires that both the cases should be tried by one and the same Court. As such the petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) In the result, the petition is allowed as prayed for. Petition allowed