VICTOR EKKA Vs. V.T. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUMAN nature as well as human relationship has enormous potentiality of exhibiting intrigue and intricacy. They can insensitively exposit a hyzantine situation or create a pandemonium over a contrived labyrinth. Sometimes they chain themselves in pretentions propensity to form a part of meretricious melodrama and yet sometimes expose their effects qualifies as if desirous of plunging into a catastrophe. When human relationships give rise to complex situations, the protagonists in search of salvation knock the doors of justice.

(2.) THE aforesaid prefatory has become necessary as the case in hand has a peculiar and uncommon matrix. The petitioner -husband has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 read with section 407 and 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for transfer of Cri. Case No. 1057/96 instituted at the instance of the petitioner against the accused -non -applicant No. 1 for commission of an offence under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhopal with a further direction to try the same jointly with S.T. No. 77/95 wherein, the non -applicant No.1 is facing trial for offences under section 376 IPC read with section 3 (1) (ii) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for having committed rape on Smt. Kusum Ekka (the wife of the petitioner), who has set the criminal action in motion by lodging an FIR against the said accused.

(3.) AS the wife of the petitioner was subjected to repeated sexual intercourse and thereby sexual exploitation by the accused -respondent 1, the petitioner filed a complaint under section 497 of IPC read with section 3 (1) (iii) (xii) of the Act, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal. The allegations are almost the same which form the foundation of the Sessions Trial. Because of this factual scenario the petitioner filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge for trial of both the criminal cases together. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 25.9.96 rejected the application on the ground that the complaint case filed by the petitioner had not been registered by that time. The petitioner decided to wait, and when the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal passed an order dated 24.5.96 in criminal case No. 1057/96 registering an offence under section 497 of IPC against the accused -respondent 1 and issued summons to him for appearance, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge for trial of both the cases together but the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 14.2.97 rejected the application on the ground that both the cases relate to different spheres and therefore, do not call for a joint trial. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present petitioner.