LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-93

BIJENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Decided On February 16, 2015
BIJENDER Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.12.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat in case FIR No. 235 dated 16.06.2011, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 506 and 216 IPC, at Police Station Sadar, Panipat and complaint case No. 15/2014 dated 06.12.2013, whereby the clubbing the FIR case and the complaint was declined.

(2.) IT is contended that the FIR in question and the complaint relates to the same incident and are between the same parties. The petitioner moved an application with a prayer that the FIR case as well as the complaint case be clubbed together for further hearing which was declined, vide order dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure P -6), holding that facts in both cases are not common and only one accused out of ten accused is involved in the complaint case which was lodged after two and five years of the registration of the FIR.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 8 submits that both the incidents are distinct and separate. The FIR in question was registered on 16.06.2011. All the PWs in the FIR stand examined and the matter is fixed for recording of the defence evidence. Thus, he states that trial in the FIR case is at the fag end. The incident pertains to 16.06.2011 and the FIR was promptly registered by respondent No. 4, whereas, the complaint in the instant case was filed on 16.12.2013, after due deliberations, wherein, only the summoning order has been issued and is at the preliminary stage. The respondents have suffered a protracted trial of three years and petitioner has filed the application on 01.12.2014 with a view to delay the trial in the FIR case. He further refers to para 14 of the complaint filed by the petitioner which clearly indicates that the complainant was not even aware of the second incident. The parties involved in the FIR case and the complaint case are also not the same.