PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been filed for quashing order dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure P5) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurdaspur dismissing the application of the petitioner as well as for issuance of directions, prayed for.

(2.) The brief backdrop of this case, relevant for disposal of the instant petition, is that FIR No.84 dated 03.11.2009 was registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326, 325, 447, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, on the statement of Ranjit Singh son of Sewa Singh in regard to murder of two persons and sustaining of injuries by others. After investigation, the police submitted the report under Section 173 of the Code against seven persons, all in custody at that time. The complainant (petitioner) on 21.04.2010 filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala against 19 persons specifically named as respondents as well as 50-60 unidentified persons for offence punishable under Sections 302, 447, 307, 427, 326, 323, 324, 325, 148, 149, 120-b, 109 IPC readwith Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. The case, on the basis of police report, was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed against the accused named in the challan on 11.05.2010 vide order Annexure P6. During the proceedings before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur (trial Court) application (Annexure P7) was filed to postpone / adjourn the proceedings in trial until commitment of complaint case which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 30.10.2010 impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the prosecution version in police challan case and complaint case is materially different, both the cases are required to be tried together by the trial Court but evidence has to be recorded separately in both the cases one after the other, though the cases are to be disposed of simultaneously vide two separate judgments. For this purpose, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 1985 1 SCC 422and Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 9 SCC 328. It is argued with vehemence that as both the cases are to be tried simultaneously, the trial Court committed a grave error in dismissing the application filed by the complainant. Thus, the order impugned cannot be allowed to sustain.