NARESH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought clubbing and trying together of two criminal cases, being (i) Special Case No. 6 of 2008 (old case No. 12/07) and (ii) Regular Criminal Case No. 55 of 2007. The first case is pending before the Special Court and arises out of Crime No. 40 of 2005 registered against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint lodged by Sumanbai Rangari. The second case pending before Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class arises out of Crime No. 42 of 2005 registered on the basis of a complaint filed by petitioner No. 9 against Avinash Manikrao Dhok and 13 other persons including Suman Rangari. According to petitioners, the incidents involved in both the said crime numbers arise out of the same transaction pertaining to taking out of procession by Suman Rangari and Meerabai Gajbhiye in celebration of they being elected as Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shankarpur in the year 2005 and, therefore, interest of justice would require that both these cases were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application before the Special Court, Warora in Special Case No. 6 of 2008 arising out of Crime No. 40 of 2005 for calling for the record of Criminal Case No. 55 of 2007 pending before the Court of J.M.F.C. Chimur, and trying the case together with the sessions triable case. The application was rejected by the learned Special Judge by his order passed on 27.3.2014 holding that both the incidents related to different transactions. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioners, both the incidents involved in Crime Nos. 40 of 2005 and 42 of 2005 arise out of the same transaction which was of taking out of the procession to celebrate the election of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the posts of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. He submits that though Crime No. 42 of 2005 (FIR) does not refer to the said procession, there are witnesses who are referring to the procession and that apart both the incidents have taken place at one and the same time and that sonic of the witnesses as well as some accused persons are common in both the crimes. Therefore, according to him, this was a fit case for clubbing together of both the cases. He also submits that if both the cases are not clubbed together and allowed to be tried by separate Courts, there is a possibility of recording of conflicting verdict by two courts which will cause prejudice to the valuable rights of both the parties to prove themselves as innocents.

(3.) According to learned APP, the places of incidents were different and even the allegations made in both the F.I.Rs. disclosed prima facie registration of offence on different sets of facts. He submits that even though time of both the incidents has been stated to be same and even though some of the witnesses and some of the accused are common, both the incidents are based upon different sets of facts and do not have co-relation with each other and, therefore, no case has been made out by the petitioners for clubbing together of both the aforesaid cases. All these facts have been appropriately considered by the learned Special Judge and, therefore, there is no room for any interference with the said order passed by the learned Special Judge, so submits learned APP.