SANATAN BEHERA Vs. LOKANATH JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 13.11.1998 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Balasore rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for staying the further proceedings in the Sessions case on the ground that the complaint case filed by him against three other accused persons should be clubbed along with the Sessions case for trial.

(2.) Facts leading to this case are that the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. making allegation against nine persons, namely the opp. Party nos. 1 to 9 for committing offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, 294, 323, 506 and 395 of the Penal Code. Upon investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against six out of nine accused persons. For the left out three accused persons, the petitioner had filed a complaint case bearing No. I.C.G. 108/1998 in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Soro, and upon consideration of materials collected during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences as stated above.

(3.) From the record, it appears that a petition was filed before the learned Asst. Sessions Judge praying, for staying of-the Sessions case on the ground that a complaint case was pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Soro, in respect of the same incident against three other accused persons and that it was desirable to club both the cases and dispose of the same one after the other by the same court. The prayer was rejected without assigning any reason. Law is very well settled that if one incident gives rise to two proceedings, both the cases should be clubbed together and heard one after the other so as to avoid any conflicting decisions that may be rendered in both the cases. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1970 S.C. 272 (Khetrabasi Samal and another v. State of Orissa). In the reported case, two cases were instituted in respect of offences committed by several accused persons in course of same transactions i.e. one upon a police report and the other upon a complaint. The Apex Court on consideration of the facts observed that both the case should be clubbed together under Section 239 of old Cr. P.C. (Sec. 223 of the 1973 Code). I, therefore, direct that the learned J.M.F.C., Soro shall commit the I.C.C. No. 108/1998 to the Court of Sessions Immediately and till such commitment is made, further proceeding in S.T. No. 55/199 of 1998 pending in the Court of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-Cum-C.J.M., Balasore shall remain stayed. After commitment of the complaint case, both the cases shall be taken up one after the other and shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Teh Crl. Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly. Crl. Misc. Case disposed of with directions.