SACHIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Bulandshahr in Criminal Case No.324 of 2018 (State vs. Sachin and others) relating to Case Crime No.473 of 2015, u/s 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Jahangirabad, District-Bulandshahar whereby the court below on the application moved on behalf of opposite party no.2 proceeded to commit the matter to the Court of Session and directed the accused-applicant to appear personally in the court below on the date fixed so that the matter may be committed.

(2.) It appears that two cases which involved some commonality were pending in two different courts; one case emanated from Case Crime No.473 of 2015 while another case emanated from Case Crime No.423 of 2015. The case arising out of Case Crime No.473 of 2015 was a case pending in the court of Magistrate while another case which arose out of Case Crime No.423 of 2015 was pending in the Court of Session. The complainant of Case Crime No.473 of 2015 moved an application before the court of Magistrate whereby it was made to appear that as these two cases were related to each other and were virtually in nature of cross versions or cross cases, therefore, they should be tried together by the same court. It was pressed before the court concerned that the case triable by the court of Magistrate should also be committed to the Court of Session so that both cases may be tried together by the same court. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the entire factual aspects on the basis of which such kind of plea was raised by the complainant of one case were gone into by the court below and were considered at a sufficient length. It was taken into account by the court of Magistrate that according to the F.I.R. which related to Case Crime no.473 of 2015 the date and time of incident was shown to be 24.9.2015 at about 10.30 O'clock. It was also taken note of by the court below that the version of the F.I.R. in this case also contained the fact that the accused persons of that case also incurred injuries in the process of intervening defence. The court below inferred on this basis that the incident was of such nature that both the sides received injuries in the common transaction. The court below was of the view that though the F.I.R. is said to have been registered on 29.9.2015 but the incident was said to have taken place on 24.9.2015. The impugned order further reflects that the court below also considered the aspect of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and was prima facie satisfied about the explanation regarding the delay. The court below went further to consider the contents of the F.I.R. relating to Case Crime No.423 of 2015 and found that even according to that F.I.R. also the incident was said to have taken place on 24.9.2015 at 10.30 O'clock. In this background of the matter, the court below was of the view that the incident took place between the same parties on the same day at the same time, and therefore, both the cases ought to be tried together and it was in view of this finding that it proceeded to commit the matter arising out of Case Crime no.473 of 2015 registered u/s 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. to the Court of Session and directed the concerned accused to appear personally in the court on the date fixed so that the matter may be committed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant.