NAWAL KISHORE Vs. NAND KISHORE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr.PC has been moved with a prayer that the trial Court should not pronounce the judgment in Case No. 3/82 till the cross Case No. 54/80 has also been heard.

(2.) In the matter of Case No. 3/82, a petition under Section 482, Cr.PC was filed on 2.3.1995 for quashing the FIR. It was stated that the trial is pending since 1980 and no progress is made. It was directed that the matter be taken up on day to day basis and the decision be given within a period of six months. It appears that on the basis of the said directions the trial proceeded expeditiously and the arguments have also been heard. Now, the present petition has been filed on 12.10.1995 with a prayer that both the cases should be heard together as they were cross cases and the respondent was not a party to it. Reliance has been placed on the decision taken by the Apex Court in the case of Nathilal and others v. State of U.P. and another : 1990 (suppl.) Supreme Court Cases 145 wherein, it was observed that each case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence placed on record. In that particular case without being influenced by evidence or argument urged in cross case, a fair procedure was considered that the cross cases should be tried one after the other. The judgment must be postponed so that there may not be any inconsistency. In view of this judgment and even otherwise the normal procedure would have been that both the cases should be heard together and direction would have been given, but the petitioner being aware of the orders being passed on 31.3.95 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 185/95 in the case of Nandkishore v. State of Rajasthan kept silence and when the evidence was concluded and arguments have been heard the prayer is made that the judgment should not be pronounced, till the hearing of other case is completed and both the cases should be heard together. The laches on the part of the petitioner disentitles him for the relief claimed. The application which was submitted by the petitioner before the trial Court was dismissed on 10.10.1995 and the arguments were heard on 11.10.95. The petitioner has stated that the notices in Misc. Application No. 185/95 were not given to him, but when this fact was known to him then, the proceedings started in Case No. 3/82 on day to day basis, he should have moved to the trial Court or could have approached to this Court and appropriate orders should have been passed. The delay on the part of the petitioner disentitles him for the relief prayed. The misc. application is accordingly dismissed.