(1.) This petition filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity the Code) seeks transfer of the Complaint case No. 76/1 dated 31-5-2002 titled as Ram Rattan v. Jeet Ram to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. It has further been prayed that the same be tried along with Sessions case No. 17/2 titled as State v. Ram Kishan aris ing out of case FIR No. 7 dated 21-1-2002 u/S.148/149/323/325/308/326IPC,P.S. Raipur Rani.
(2.) The occurrence in both the cases i.e. in the complaint case as well as in the police case is the same but the version given by one party and the other differs. An application for transfer of the complaint case was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed on 3-4-2003 with the observation that such a request should be made to the Magistrate in the complaint case for commitment of the accused to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, an application for transfer of the complaint was also filed but the same has also been disposed of with the observation that the accused by then had not put in appearance. Both the orders have been placed on record as Annexures P-1 and P-2. It has also been mentioned that on the basis of the police report, the accused in the police case has been committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence. The application for deferring the trial has also been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under subsection 2 of Section 210 of the Code, there is a legal obligation cast on the Court to try both the cases together i.e. the complaint case as well as the case based on the police report provided both the cases are arising out of the same occurrence. She has pointed out that it is admitted position that the complaint as well as the police report have arisen from the same occurrence.