JAI NARAIN Vs. AMARJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 407(1)(c)(ii) read with 482 Cr.P.C. praying for clubbing CRM-A-1007-MA-2018 arising out of judgment and order dtd. 5/12/2017 passed by learned ACJM, Gurugram in criminal complaint No.36 of 2008 dtd. 30/10/2008, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, wherein, the respondent has been acquitted which is pending before this Court and Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2018 dtd. 7/9/2018 arising out of judgment dtd. 5/12/2017 passed by the learned ACJM, Gurugram in FIR No.127, dtd. 1/3/2011, registered under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC titled as State vs. Jai Narain, wherein the petitioner has been acquitted, which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram.

(2.) Adumbrated facts of the case are that the petitioner was prosecuted by the respondent in above-said FIR No.127 on account of preparing two fabricated receipts dtd. 1/8/2007 and 25/2/2008 to the tune of Rs.50.00 lacs each and on the other hand, the petitioner had filed above-said criminal complaint No.36 against the respondent before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The incident was reported to the police by both the parties and the police officials registered FIR against the petitioner, however, did not register cross case against the respondent and hence, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court on 31/10/2008. Both the cases arisen out of the same incident between the same parties, were tried and decided together by the same Court i.e. learned ACJM, Gurugram vide separate orders dtd. 5/12/2017 in both the cases. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused in both the cases i.e. the petitioner, who was accused in FIR case and the respondent, who was accused in complaint case. Aggrieved by both these judgments of acquittal, both the petitioner and the respondent assailed the respective judgments of acquittal before the learned Appellate Court. As per the appellate jurisdiction, the petitioner filed the leave to appeal under Sec. 378(4) Cr.P.C. before this Court by way of CRM-A-1007-MA-2018, which is pending adjudication before this Court. However, respondent at whose behest the petitioner was prosecuted in FIR case, had assailed the order of acquittal against the petitioner by way of filing Appeal No.52 of 2018 as enumerated under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C., before the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram and the same is pending adjudication before it. As the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is of version and cross-version regarding which one case is pending before this Court and another one before Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by of filing the present petition under Sec. 407(1)(c)(ii) read with 482 Cr.P.C. praying for clubbing CRM-A-1007-MA-2018 and Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2018 and deciding them together.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the inter-se dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is regarding an agreement to sell between both of them as there arose a dispute regarding execution of sale deed. He submits that both the parties had their version regarding the dispute and hence, both of them approached the police for the redressal of their grievances by praying for registration of FIR against each other. He submits that on the basis of the version of the petitioner, no FIR was registered against the respondent, whereas, at the behest of the respondent FIR No.127 was registered against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner feeling aggrieved by inaction of the police had no other option than to file a complaint under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondent for his prosecution. He submits that both the cases i.e. FIR case and the complaint case, were tried by the same trial Court i.e. ACJM, Gurugram and in both the cases accused i.e. the petitioner and the respondent were acquitted by it by way of passing separate judgments dtd. 5/12/2017 in both cases. He submits that said judgments were challenged by both the petitioner and the respondent and the leave to appeal as well as appeal are pending adjudication before two different forums and hence, there is every chance that if both are allowed to be adjudicated by these two different forums, the view taken by both the Courts can be self contradictory and would be prejudicial to both the sides. He submits that as per the provisions of Sec. 407(1)(c)(ii) Cr.P.C., this Court facing the situation such like in hand, has the jurisdiction for directing Appeal No.52 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to be transferred to this Court and tried by this Court alongwith CRM-A-1007-MA-2018 pending before this Court. He submits that it would be in the interest of justice to try both these appeals together by this Court so as to avoid any miscarriage of justice with either of the parties. He further submits that as the legislature has not provided any specific remedy in meeting this type of situation and to meet the ends of justice, this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 407 Cr.P.C. to meet the ends of justice. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Indra Das vs. State of Assam, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 64 and Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 978 and prays for allowing the present petition by directing the Sessions Court to remit the record of the appeal pending before it to this Court so as both the cases be heard together.