AVNEESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 30th September, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, district Morena in Cri. Rev. No. 176/20. A bare reading of the documents filed and the orders impugned passed by the two courts-below, indicated that on 7th November 2011 at about 2 p.m., in front of the house of Avnish Sharma (petitioner), all the accused/respondents having armed with guns and country-made pistols reached the house of complainant and with an intention to endanger the human life, opened fire in the air. The accused were also shouting to drag the petitioner and his family-members out from their house to kill them. An FIR of the incident was lodged at the police station concerned The counter report of the incident occurred on a same day before the house of Ramdeen Sharma, was also lodged by Om Prakash, the accused against the complainant-party on the basis of which an offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. was lodged. As per spot map prepared in both the matters shows that the place was in between the houses of petitioner Avinash Sharma and Ramdeen Sharma. After investigation, the charge-sheets were filed before criminal courts. One trial is commenced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate and another trial after committal is commenced before the Sessions Court at Jaura.

(2.) By the impugned order, the learned revisional court has refused to entertain prayer of the petitioner for trial of both cases by one court. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there are two cross-cases arise out of the same incident, firstly was registered at Crime No. 162/10, for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and the other was registered at Crime No. 163/10 which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaura, district Morena. Since one of them is exclusively triable by the Sessions court while the other is not, therefore, by moving an appropriate application under Section 323 of Cr.P.C., it was prayed that both the cases be heard together by the same court But this application was rejected up to the stage of revisional court by the court of Sessions.

(3.) Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 1/State. Also perused the relevant papers available on the record.