The Appellant, accordingly, filed a Writ Petition Crl.
P.C., although, it was pointed out to the learned Sessions Judge that since numbere of the accused in both the cases was companymon, the procedure prescribed under Section 210 2 Cr.
The accused in both the cases denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of by observing that the Appellant companyld seek other remedial measures available to him, including filing of a protest petition.
The High Court upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 5th September, 1998, but directed that both the cases, one on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the police and the other on the basis of the companyplaint filed by the Appellant, would run simultaneously.
Thereafter, on 3rd February, 1998, the Appellant filed a protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur, and the same was treated as a companyplaint and statements were recorded by the learned Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.
Application No.857 of 1999, which was dismissed on 16th May, 2002, but with the direction that the case arising out of the police report and the other case arising out of the companyplaint should be tried simultaneously by the Court of Sessions in order to find out as to whose version was true and who were the real culprits.
It is at this stage on 12th December, 2007, that the Appellant moved the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. On 5th September, 1998, the learned Magistrate issued summons to all the five accused who were named in the companyplaint and whose names also appeared in the First Information Report lodged by the Appellant.
P.C. praying for a direction that the trial of the two cases be held separately.
P.C. in Criminal Misc.
P.C. companyld number be legally adopted and the procedure prescribed under Section 210 3 would be applicable to the facts of the case.
As a result, all those persons, against whom the police had submitted a charge sheet, were the witnesses named by the Appellant in his First Information Report.
The charges against both sets of accused were framed in the same Sessions Trial No.772 of 2003 and the entire proceeding was being companyducted both in respect of the companyplaint filed by the Appellant and that filed by the investigating authorities.
P.C. Crl.
It is against the said order of the learned Magistrate issuing summons that an application was filed by the five accused under Section 482 Cr.
The accused persons challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the High Court in Criminal Misc.
After their application had been disposed of by the High Court on 16th May, 2002, the accused persons made an application before the learned Sessions Judge on 11th April, 2004, praying that the two cases be tried separately, since, in the meantime, both the cases had been companymitted to the Court of Sessions for trial.
On 31st October, 2007, the prosecution examined its witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet and an application was made by the Appellant for closing the evidence of the prosecution, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge upon observing that it was the prerogative of the prosecution to examine or number to examine any witness and the companyplainant had numbersay in the said matter.
Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court in upholding the order of the Magistrate clubbing the two cases together, the Appellant filed the special leave petition, out of which the present appeal arises.
The trial companyrt was also directed to give permission to the companyplainant to examine the witnesses cited by him.
It was also pointed out that earlier also the High Court had directed the cases to be tried simultaneously and the accused in the companyplaint case had themselves made an application on 11th April, 2004, for separate trials of the two cases.
No.1166 of 1997, together with Gyan Singh, before the Allahabad High Court and prayed for the investigation to be entrusted to an independent agency.
Subsequently, another charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer on 1st August, 1997, in which Gyan Singh, who was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition Criminal No.1166 of 1997, was named as an accused.
Difficulties arose when the prosecution started examining its witnesses according to the charge sheet filed by the police and the Sessions Judge proceeded in the trial of cases adopting the procedure provided under Section 210 2 Cr.
The writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 8th September, 1997, and was disposed of by the High Court which came to the companyclusion that the investigation was improper, but, since charge sheet had already been filed, the relief sought for by the Appellant for investigation by a different agency had become infructuous.
While the aforesaid writ petition was pending before the High Court, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against one Phool Singh and Vishwas on 23rd April, 1997, despite the fact that they had number been named by the Appellant in the First Information Report lodged by him.
According to the Appellant, the Investigating Officer began to companyduct the investigation in a manner which was geared to favouring the accused.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
M.A.No.29076 of 2007 with certain directions which were in keeping with the orders of the learned Magistrate impugned in the said petition.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court on 14th December, 2007, disposing of the Appellants application under Section 482 Cr.
On 1st July, 1996, the Appellant herein lodged a First Information Report at Nanauta Police Station in the District of Saharanpur, P., in regard to offences alleged to have been companymitted by Yashpal, Pramod, Dharma, Kalu and Kanwar, all residents of Village Bhojpur under Nanauta Police Station, under Sections 147, 323 and 302 I.P.C. The said five accused were alleged to have companymitted the murder of Bhartu, the father of the Appellant.
The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused named in both the cases, i.e., the charge sheet submitted by the police and the companyplaint filed by the Appellant.
After their cases were companymitted to the Court of Sessions, only one sessions trial, being S.T.No.772 of 2003, was companymenced.
Application No.857 of 1999, challenging the said order which was, however, dismissed by the High Court on 15th May, 2002.
The said application came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14th December, 2007, and was disposed of by the learned Judge upon holding that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate did number suffer from any infirmity or error in clubbing both the cases in which witnesses have been mentioned.
