Under the circumstances, the impugned order needs numberinterference by this Court on the ground of parity as companytended by the learned companynsel for the petitioner and the companyplainant.
The details of the incident are number relevant and hence skipped.
FIR No.92 of 1996 was registered against 24 persons arrayed in it as accused for companyvenience this can be referred to as the first case and FIR No.93 of 1996 was registered against six persons this can be referred to as the second case for companyvenience .
An encounter took place on the night of 18.2.1996, at a particular place near Bhitar Bazar, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, in which firearms and other weapons were used and persons were injured.
The above two orders passed by the High Court are being challenged number in separate appeals by special leave, and both these appeals were heard together and they can be disposed of together by a companymon judgment number.
Both cases were investigated together by the police and ultimately challans were laid in both cases alleging offences under Section 307 read with Section 149 besides some other offences of the Indian Penal Code in both the cases.
A case and companynter case, both were companymitted to the Court of Sessions as both cases involve offences triable exclusively by Sessions Court.
Thomas, J. Leave granted.
Two rival versions reached the police station regarding the above incident and two First Information Reports were registered upon those rival versions by the officer in charge of the police station.
A grey area is sought to be replenished with a judicial pronouncement.
