# Manoj v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 996
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 9136 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50964
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 161, 164, 313 &
482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 325, 342, 354,
504 & 506 - Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for
quashing the impugned order passed in a
Session Trial and proceedings of a complaint
case be tried along with the Session Trial as a
cross-case - Both cases stem from the same
incident - FIR in the sessions trial, alleges that
informant's son was abducted and brutally
assaulted by accused-applicant & ors.using iron
rods and sticks, with an attempt to shoot him -
and in the cross-version, lodged later by wife of
applicant under Section 156(3), alleges that
aforesaid informant and his associates molested
her and assaulted her family - injuries - St.ment
recorded under Section 164 - police filed a final
report - accepted - but set aside in revision -
The Magistrate then treated it as a complaint
case and summoned the accused under Sections
323, 354, 504, and 506 IPC - The application
seeks consolidation of both cases for joint trial
to ensure fair adjudication - the Court observed
that while cross-cases must be tried separately,
they should be placed before the same Judge to
avoid conflicting judgments and ensure a
comprehensive view of the incident - held - the
impugned order rejecting the applicant's plea
was quashed and the proceedings of complaint
case shall be called by the Additional Session
Judge and tried by the same Judge, though
separately, where evidence would be recorded
in each case, also separately and the judgment
shall, however, be pronounced by the same
learned Judge, one after the other, bearing in
mind the guidance in this judgement and the
law - in the result, this application succeeds and
is allowed. (Para - 23, 24)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposition to the relationship and proposed
marriage of applicant no.1 with the
prosecutorix they cannot be said to have
conspired against the prosecurtorix and
extended threat to her life. Thus, from the
plain reading of the FIR and statements of
the prosecutorix, no offence under Section
506 and 120-B is made out.

21. Thus, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the
arguments made by the learned counsel for
the parties and case-laws cited above, the
present Application succeeds and is,
accordingly, allowed.

22. Consequently, the entire criminal
proceedings of Crl. Case no. 20577 of 2021
(state vs. Aruni Mittal and others) is hereby
quashed against the applicants.

23. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the court concerned forthwith.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 996
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 9136 of 2023

Manoj ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Pandey Balkrishna, Sri Sunil Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Sunil Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 161, 164, 313 &
482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 325, 342, 354,
504 & 506 - Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for
quashing the impugned order passed in a
Session Trial and proceedings of a complaint
case be tried along with the Session Trial as a
cross-case - Both cases stem from the same
incident - FIR in the sessions trial, alleges that
informant's son was abducted and brutally
assaulted by accused-applicant & ors.using iron
rods and sticks, with an attempt to shoot him -
and in the cross-version, lodged later by wife of
applicant under Section 156(3), alleges that
aforesaid informant and his associates molested
her and assaulted her family - injuries - St.ment
recorded under Section 164 - police filed a final
report - accepted - but set aside in revision -
The Magistrate then treated it as a complaint
case and summoned the accused under Sections
323, 354, 504, and 506 IPC - The application
seeks consolidation of both cases for joint trial
to ensure fair adjudication - the Court observed
that while cross-cases must be tried separately,
they should be placed before the same Judge to
avoid conflicting judgments and ensure a
comprehensive view of the incident - held - the
impugned order rejecting the applicant's plea
was quashed and the proceedings of complaint
case shall be called by the Additional Session
Judge and tried by the same Judge, though
separately, where evidence would be recorded
in each case, also separately and the judgment
shall, however, be pronounced by the same
learned Judge, one after the other, bearing in
mind the guidance in this judgement and the
law - in the result, this application succeeds and
is allowed. (Para - 23, 24)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Pal alias Palla Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC
123,

2. M.P. Vs Mishrilal (dead) & ors., (2003) 9 SCC
426,

3. Nathi Lal & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 1990
Supp SCC 145.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is an application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
3 All. Manoj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
997
1973 (for short, 'the Code') praying that the
order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.12, Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 219 of
2017, State vs. Manoj & others (arising out
of Case Crime No.58 of 2017), under
Sections 342, 323, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police
Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahr
be quashed; and proceedings of Complaint
Case No.523 of 2019, Kripa Devi vs.
Ravikant and others, under Sections 323,
354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja
Dehat,
District
Bulandshahr,
pending
before the Magistrate be called from that
Court and tried along with the sessions trial
aforesaid as a cross-case by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.

2. The offence, according to the First
Information Report (for short, 'FIR'), giving
rise to the sessions trial and the one giving
rise to the cross-version lodged at the
instance of the accused in the sessions trial,
both relate to an incident that happened on
16.02.2017. The FIR, leading to the
sessions trial, does not mention the time of
occurrence, whereas the one that has led to
the complaint case pending before the
Magistrate, indicates the time to be 18:00
hours (6:00 p.m.). While the FIR giving
rise to the sessions trial was promptly
lodged on 16.02.2017, to wit, the date of
occurrence, the cross-version came to be
registered after a refusal by the Police to
lodge it, under orders of the learned
Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) of
the Code. It was registered on 01.05.2017.

3. It would be apposite to refer to the
prosecution version, as carried in the FIR,
relating to Crime No.58 of 2017, that has
given rise to the sessions trial. The FIR
here was lodged by one Ratibhan son of
Pyare Lal, a resident of Village Bagarai
Kalan, District Bulandshahr. According to
the informant here, the informant's son
Ravikant Singh was abducted by the
accused Manoj son of Dalchand, Mahesh,
Babloo, sons of Dalchand, Trilok Chand
son of Mahveer, Mahaveer son of Roopa,
Deepak son of the late Raju and Dalchand
son of the late Babu Lal, all natives of the
village.
These
men
abducted
the
informant's son Ravikant from his home
and forcibly took him over to their house,
where the accused battered the informant's
son mercilessly, after stuffing his mouth
with cloth. They carried out the assault
employing iron rods, which were wielded
by Mahaveer and Mahesh, whereas Babloo
and Trilok wielded sticks (danda). These
they employed to deliver grievous injuries
to the victim's head. The accused, Deepak
and Dalchand also had iron rods, which
they used to deliver blows to the victim's
limbs causing fracture to his hands and
lower limbs. It is also alleged that Manoj,
amongst the accused, opened fire with an
intention to kill the victim employing a
country-made pistol, but the informant's
son was saved by a hairbreadth. It is on the
basis of this version that Crime No.58 of
2017 was registered under Sections 147,
148, 149, 342, 308, 323, 325 I.P.C. at
Police Station Khurja Dehat, District
Bulandshahr.

4. According to the FIR lodged by
Smt. Kripa Devi wife of Manoj, that carries
the cross-version, the accused were five in
number. It includes Ravikant son of
Ratibhan,
Sanjeev
son
of
Ratibhan,
Vijayveer son of Kishan, Ratibhan son of
Pyare Lal and Kishan son of Pyare Lal.
According to this report, that has been
lodged under orders of the A.C.J.M.,
Khurja,
District
Bulandshahr,
on
16.02.2017 at about 6 o'clock in the
evening, the first informant was feeding her
buffaloes in the Gher behind her house,
998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
when Ravikant and Sanjeev sons of
Ratibhan, Vijayveer, Ratibhan and Kishan
forced their entry into her home and
molested her. They tore up her clothes with
an intent to outrage her modesty. The
informant raised alarm, whereupon the
informant's husband Manoj, his younger
brothers Mahesh and Babloo, came over to
the informant's rescue. Upon an attempt to
rescue the informant, the accused here,
employing the sticks and iron rods that they
were carrying, assaulted the informant. The
victim and her family raised alarm, which
brought natives of the village, Anil, Jallu
and Ajay, besides others to the spot.

The men, who arrived there,
rescued the first informant and her family
from the clutches of the accused here, who
left the place abusing the first informant
and saying that their brother serves in the
Police, on account of which the informant
cannot bring them any harm. The assailants
also threatened the victim with death. The
informant goes on to say that with the
assistance of her family, she caught
Ravikant red handed on the spot. The
Police arrived at that time. The informant
handed over Ravikant to the Police. Since,
the informant's husband and brothers-inlaw had sustained considerable injury, the
informant approached the local police
station to lodge an FIR. The local police,
however, said that the informant should
better get a medical examination done for a
first. She went to the Jatia Government
Hospital, Khurja, where a medico-legal
examination was carried out. Still, the
Police did not lodge the informant's FIR.
Instead, in connivance with Ravikant, he
was let off with no proceedings being taken
against him. The informant sent a written
information to the Senior Superintendent of
Police by registered post on 17.04.2017,
but no action was taken. It was in these
circumstances that she had to move the
learned
Magistrate,
who
ordered
registration of a case.

5. The case of the informant in the
cross-version, that is to say, Smt. Kripa
Devi, was registered as Crime No.176 of
2017
under
the
provisions
already
mentioned and investigated by the Police.
The informant, Kripa Devi too had
sustained injuries and her statement was
recorded under Section 164 of the Code,
where she supported the prosecution. The
Investigating
Officer,
nevertheless,
submitted a final report. A protest petition
was moved against the final report, which
was rejected by the Magistrate and the final
report
accepted
vide
order
dated
20.11.2018.

6. Aggrieved, Kripa Devi carried
Criminal Revision No.436 of 2018 to the
learned Sessions Judge, which came up
before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Khurja at Bulandshahr. He set aside
the order dated 20.11.2018 vide his
judgment and order dated 06.04.2019. The
matter was sent back to the Magistrate, but
with what directions, is not very patent.
The Magistrate, bearing in mind the gravity
of the offence, under orders of the
Revisional Court, directed the case to be
registered as a complaint case vide order
dated 06.06.2019 and proceeded as such.

7. The Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate vide her order dated 20.10.2021,
upon considering the statements under
Sections 200 and 202 of the Code,
proceeded to summon the informant of the
present crime, Ratibhan, his son Ravikant,
Sanjeev, Vijayveer and Kishan to stand
their trial for offences punishable under
Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C.

8. Now, this case is pending before
the Magistrate. It is no doubt a complaint
3 All. Manoj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
999
case, and, may be, as the learned
Additional Sessions Judge says in the
impugned order, is at a very incipient stage.
The applicant, who is one of the accused in
the sessions trial and the informant's
husband in the complaint case carrying the
cross-version, moved an application dated
04.02.2023 before the Trial Judge praying
that the record of proceedings of the
pending Complaint Case No.523 of 2019,
be summoned from the Magistrate's Court
and tried along with the sessions trial. The
prayer in the application falls short of
saying that, but given the legal acumen,
seen now-a-days in Mofussil Courts, the
purport of the application is clear. It is,
particularly, so as the following averment
in the application would demonstrate:

"इस प्रकार ए०सी०जे०एम०खुजाग
में लजम्ित पररिाद ि उक्त सत्र िाद की
घटना एक ही हदनािंक ि समय हदनािंक -
16-02-2017 समय शाम 6.00 िजे की है।
इसके अलािा इस सत्र िाद के िादी ि
गिाह पररिाद सिं0 - 523 / 2019 में
असियुक्त
है।
इस
प्रकार
माननीय
न्यायालय में लजम्ित उक्त सत्र िाद ि
प्रार्थगनापत्र में िखणगत पररिाद सिं0-523 / 2019
अिं० िारा - 354, 323, 504, 506, आई० पी०
सी० र्थाना खुजाग देहात िोस केस है। दोनो
िादों का तनस्तारण एक ही सार्थ आिश्यक
है।"

9. The learned Sessions Judge has
understood the application to be one made
for trial of both cases together by the
learned Sessions Judge, as cross-versions.
There is, therefore, no ambiguity about the
purport of the application, bearing Paper
No.71-B, notwithstanding the casual words
in which the prayer has been made. The
learned Sessions Judge has rejected the
applicant and directed the trial to proceed.

10. Parties have exchanged affidavits
and the matter was admitted to hearing on
16.05.2023. It was subsequently heard and
judgment reserved, when an interim order
was granted staying delivery of judgment
in the sessions trial till pronouncement of
judgment in this case.

11. Heard Mr. Pandey Balkrishna,
learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel on
behalf of opposite party No.2 and Mr. D.K.
Srivastava, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the
State.

12. It is submitted by the learned
Counsel for the applicant that it is a
salutary
principle
of
law
governing
procedure in criminal trials that crossversion must always be tried together. He
submits that keeping out one cross-version
gives an incomplete picture to the Court,
and, in any case, one of the versions if tried
in isolation, almost results in rejection of
the other, without a trial.

13. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned
Counsel for the complainant and Mr. D.K.
Srivastava, learned A.G.A., on the other
hand, say that bringing in the so called
cross-version, which is pending as a
complaint case before the Magistrate, is no
more than a dilatory tactic by the accused
in a case where the sessions trial has
reached a stage where judgment has to be
pronounced.

14. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
parties, this Court finds that what the
learned Counsel for the complainant and
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the learned A.G.A. say, is in accord with
what the learned Trial Judge held, and what
has to be seen is, if the order passed by the
Trial Court, given the nature of the two
versions, is in accord with the law. The
learned Judge has said in his remarks that
the sessions trial is at the stage of address
of arguments and the complaint case, which
the applicant says, ought to be called and
tried, is pending before the A.C.J.M.,
Khurja,
Bulandshahr.
In
that
case,
summons have been issued against the
accused and the entire testimony is yet to
be recorded. It is also remarked by the
learned Sessions Judge that the accused, in
their statements under Section 313 of the
Code, have not mentioned the cross-case
nor do they say that the present sessions
trial arises out of the same incident. It is
also noted by the Trial Judge that between
the two sides in the past also, according to
the accused's statement under Section 313
of the Code, offences have been committed
involving the family, where cases are
pending. The Court has concluded that the
application made by the applicant in this
case is one to delay trial and runs counter to
the directions of the Supreme Court and
this Court to conclude criminal trials at the
earliest as an imperative. The first to be
determined is the fact if indeed the
complaint case at the instance of the
applicant or so to speak his wife, is a crossversion of the occurrence. The Trial Judge
has contented himself, by holding it not to
be so, because the accused in their
statement under Section 313 of the Code
have not said it to be a cross-case pending
between parties. We do not think that, that
is in any way decisive of the matter.

15. The substance of a cross-version
or a cross-case comes from the fact if in the
same occurrence, the aggressor, who is the
accused, says that in fact he is not to blame,
but the other side, who are the complainant
and dubbed him as the aggressor, are
themselves the aggressors, who have
committed an offence, for which they ought
to be punished. The fact, therefore, if a case
indeed is a cross-version, depends mostly
upon the fact if the occurrence is the same,
about which two sides have different
versions. The mere fact that one side being
tried as the accused do not say in their
statement under Section 313 of the Code
that there is a cross-version also, is not at
all relevant. The learned Trial Judge has
spoken about the stage of the trial as fairly
advanced before him and the complaint
case being at an incipient stage, as a
consideration against trying the crossversion together. That again is an irrelevant
consideration. The question of delay while
certainly of concern for every Judge,
cannot be remedied by haste, resulting in
miscarriage of justice. If two cross-versions
that are indeed so and arise from the same
occurrence are tried at different points of
time, one earlier and the other later, one
before one Judge and the other before
another Judge, would certainly result in the
determination of truth being lost to
preclusion by the first determination and a
truncated
trial
being
held,
causing
miscarriage of justice. The complete and
wholesome version would never be tried.
This is not the cost at which the trial of a
case is to be expedited. This is not to say
that cross-versions being in most cases
mutually exclusive in the sense that if one
is true, the other false, the trial of crossversions is to be consolidated and common
evidence recorded. That is not the law
about it. In cross-versions arising out of the
same occurrence, trials are to be separately
held, one after the other, but before the
same Judge, who may, therefore, have a
complete picture of it before him, when
evidence concludes in both trials. The
3 All. Manoj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1001
further salutary purpose to be achieved by
this course of action is to eschew
conflicting judgments relating to the same
occurrence.

16. What we observe in this case from
the records is that the cross-version is not
merely one that has been propounded as
some kind of a counterblast or a mala fide
enterprise. Rather, the learned Trial Judge
has himself noticed that there is a history of
offences involving families of the applicant
and the complainant in this case. The
version here also narrates that there are
injuries, regarding which the Police told the
applicant and his party to get themselves
medically examined first before an FIR is
lodged. They did get themselves medically
examined according to the applicant's
version, but an FIR was still not lodged.
The applicant and his side approached the
Senior S.P. by intimating him of the
information through registered post, but to
no avail. The applicant's wife acting as the
informant,
then
moved
the
learned
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the
Code and an FIR came to be registered by
the Police. The Police put in a final report,
which was protested. The protest was
rejected and the FR accepted. The
applicant's wife then preferred a revision to
the Sessions Judge, that was allowed and
the matter remanded. In the next lap, the
learned
Magistrate
chose
to
take
cognizance of the matter as a complaint and
after an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202
of the Code, summoned the opposite partycomplainant and the other accused on his
side to stand their trial.

17. In the background of these facts,
what is further noticeable is that the FIR
lodged at the instance of the applicant and
that on behalf of the complainant-opposite
party, allege the incident to have happened
on the same date i.e. 16.02.2017. Rather,
quaintly the FIR lodged at the instance of
the complainant-opposite party, does not
mention any time of the incident. To the
contrary, the FIR lodged at the instance of
the
applicant,
under
orders
of
the
Magistrate,
mentions
the
time
of
occurrence to be 6 o'clock in the evening
hours. According to the FIR that the
applicant's wife had lodged, which has now
culminated in the complaint case, the
aggressors were the complainants of the
case giving rise to the sessions trial, where
the victim Ravikant and the informant
himself were amongst the party, who
entered the applicant's home and molested
the informant. The FIR at the instance of
the applicant's wife clearly says that
Ravikant was apprehended when others had
arrived and the informant's husband and her
two brothers-in-law were there, the coaccused in this case. All these facts
coalesce to show that the two incidents are
indeed cross-versions.

18. All that has been said here may
not be taken to mean in the slightest an
expression of opinion on the merits of the
parties' case. That is not the office of these
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code
nor the intention of the Court to judge the
truth or otherwise of the two versions. All
that we wish to say is that the facts that we
have noticed show both the cases to be
indeed cross-versions, arising out of the
same occurrence. The concern of the
learned Sessions Judge about the delay is
also not well-founded, the way the
proceedings in this case have turned. The
fact that the Police had not registered the
informant's case and when it was indeed
registered under orders of the Magistrate,
they put in a final report, which was
accepted
by
the
learned
Magistrate,
compelling the applicant to approach the
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Revisional Court, makes the delay not
relevant. These are all matters that do not
support inherently a dilatory conduct on the
applicant's part or the other co-accused on
his side. The applicant cannot be blamed
for delays on the part of the Police, or the
mistakes that they have committed, or the
errors by the learned Magistrate that were
rectified in revision. The blame for the time
consumed in all these proceedings cannot
be placed on the applicant's shoulder.

19. The principles governing crosscases and the propriety of these being tried
together, this Court has already dealt with.
This issue has engaged the attention of the
Supreme Court in Nathi Lal and others v.
State of U.P. and another, 1990 Supp
SCC 145, where it was observed:

"2. We think that the fair
procedure to adopt in a matter like the
present where there are cross cases, is to
direct that the same learned Judge must try
both the cross cases one after the other.
After the recording of evidence in one case
is completed, he must hear the arguments
but
he
must
reserve
the
judgment.
Thereafter he must proceed to hear the
cross case and after recording all the
evidence he must hear the arguments but
reserve the judgment in that case. The same
learned Judge must thereafter dispose of
the matters by two separate judgments. In
deciding each of the cases, he can rely only
on the evidence recorded in that particular
case. The evidence recorded in the cross
case cannot be looked into. Nor can the
judge be influenced by whatever is argued
in the cross case. Each case must be
decided on the basis of the evidence which
has been placed on record in that
particular case without being influenced in
any manner by the evidence or arguments
urged in the cross case. But both the
judgments must be pronounced by the same
learned Judge one after the other."

20. A more elaborate statement of the
principles is to be found in the decision of
the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v.
Mishrilal (dead) and others, (2003) 9
SCC 426, where following Nathi Lal
(supra) it has been held:

"8. In the instant case, it is
undisputed, that the investigating officer
submitted the challan on the basis of the
complaint lodged by the accused Mishrilal
in respect of the same incident. It would
have been just, fair and proper to decide
both the cases together by the same court
in view of the guidelines devised by this
Court in Nathi Lal case [1990 Supp SCC
145 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 638] . The crosscases should be tried together by the same
court irrespective of the nature of the
offence involved. The rational behind this is
to avoid the conflicting judgments over the
same incident because if cross-cases are
allowed to be tried by two courts separately
there is likelihood of conflicting judgments.
In the instant case, the investigating officer
submitted the challan against both the
parties. Both the complaints cannot be said
to be right. Either one of them must be
false. In such a situation, legal obligation is
cast upon the investigating officer to make
an endeavour to find out the truth and to
cull
out
the
truth
from
falsehood.
Unfortunately, the investigating officer has
failed to discharge the obligation, resulting
in grave miscarriage of justice."

21. The question that is involved here
in the context of trying two cases together
by the same Judge, arising out of the same
occurrence, one instituted on a police report
and the other dealt with as a complaint,
came up before the Supreme Court in Pal
3 All. Aman Deep Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1003
alias Palla v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2010) 10 SCC 123. The issue was if the
case on the police challan had to be tried
together with the complaint carrying a
cross-version or just the police case tried in
accordance with the provisions of subSections (1) and (2) of Section 210 of the
Code. It was held in Pal alias Palla
(supra):

"30. The facts of the case also
warrant that the two trials should be
conducted by the same Presiding Officer in
order to avoid conflict of decisions. As was
observed in Harjinder Singh case [(1985) 1
SCC 422 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 93] clubbing
and consolidating the two cases, one on a
police challan and the other on a
complaint, if the prosecution versions in the
two
cases
are
materially
different,
contradictory
and
mutually
exclusive,
should not be consolidated but should be
tried together with the evidence in the two
cases being recorded separately, so that
both the cases could be disposed of
simultaneously."

22. Since in cross-cases, the versions
would
be
mutually
exclusive
and
conflicting decision is to be eschewed, the
two cases are to be tried together by the
same Judge recording evidence separately
in both the trials. And, as held in Nathi
Lal, judgment must be pronounced by the
same learned Judge, one after the other, to
borrow the words of their Lordships.

23. In view of these facts, this Court
finds that the impugned order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable
and deserves to be quashed.

24. In the result, this application
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Bulandshahr
dated 09.02.2023 is hereby quashed. It is
ordered that proceedings of Complaint
Case No.523 of 2019, Kripa Devi vs.
Ravikant and others, under Sections 323,
354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja
Dehat, District Bulandshahr pending before
the learned Magistrate, shall be called by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.12, Bulandshahr and tried by the same
Judge, though separately, where evidence
would be recorded in each case, also
separately. The judgment shall, however,
be pronounced by the same learned Judge,
one after the other, bearing in mind the
guidance in this judgment and the law.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 9198 of 2021

Aman Deep Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri K.S. Tiwari, Sri Amber Khanna, Sri Raj
Kumar Khanna, Sri Vivek Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, Sri Santosh
Kumar Pandey, Sri Shaeshadri Trivedi, Sri
Satish Trivedi (Sr. Advocate)

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 145, 145-(1) & 482 -
Constitution of India,1950 - Article - 227-
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing of the
impugned order of property attachment under
Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. as well as the entire
criminal proceedings - a suit is pending