BRAHM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of direction to the Judicial Magistrate to commit the case titled as State v. Sonu Verma etc. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) TWO FIRs were registered in PS Jaitu, District Faridkot. The first FIR is FIR No. 89 dated 3.9.1996 under Sections 342, 506, 427, 148, 149 IPC, copy Annexure P2, in which the date and time of the occurrence is mentioned as the night intervening 2/3rd September, 1996 at about 10 or 10.30 p.m. The other FIR is bearing No. 19 dated 22.2.1997 under Sections 342, 506, 427, 148, 149 IPC, copy Annexure P1, in which the date and time of occurrence is mentioned as 2nd September, 1996 at about 10.30 or 11 p.m. From a perusal of these two FIRs, thus it would be clear that time of occurrence is almost the same. The FIR No. 89 dated 3.9.1996, copy Annexure P2 was lodged by Brahm Parkash and in the said FIR Sonu Verma and others are the accused. The other FIR No. 19 dated 22.2.1997, copy Annexure P1 was registered under the orders of this court at the instance of Sonu Verma, aforesaid against Brahm Parkash etc. Thus, it would be clear that in one FIR Sonu Verma is the accused and in the other FIR Sonu Verma is the complainant. Similarly, in one FIR Brahm Parkash is the complainant whereas in the other FIR Brahm Parkash is the accused. As per these two FIRs, the occurrence had taken place almost at the same time. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, it could not be said that these were two occurrences which were to be tried separately by different courts.

(3.) SINCE the two cases arising out of two FIRs pertaining to the same occurrence were pending in two different courts, Brahm Parkash, petitioner filed the application before the learned Magistrate for committing the case which was being tried by the learned Magistrate, to the Court of Session, so that both the cases could be decided by the same court. However, vide order dated 12.10.2000, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said application of Brahm Parkash. Thereupon, Brahm Parkash filed revision petition before the Session Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 5.4.2001, copy Annexure P3 dismissed the said application by taking an erroneous view of the matter by observing that in the two cases the place of occurrence is stated to be different inasmuch as in one FIR the place of occurrence is stated to be near Tandon Nursing Home at 10.30/11 p.m. whereas in the other case the place of occurrence is stated to be main bazar at about 10.15/10.30 p.m. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also considered that the case State v. Sonu Verma was at the stage of defence evidence whereas the case State v. Labhu Ram was at the stage of consideration of charge and it was likely to take long time in maturing the case.