RAJ MANI CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record.
(2.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner for staying the proceedings of S. T. No. 292 of 2009, arising out of case Crime No. 402 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P. C., Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi as the cross case arising out of Case Crime No. 402-A of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Hardoi is not being sent for trial with the aforesaid case (S.T. No. 292 of 2009), pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hardoi. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that on the written report of complainant Devendra Kumar Singh, son of Raj Kumar Singh, resident of Village Bandari, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi, the police of Police Station Sandi registered a case under Section 147. 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., at Crime No. 402 of 2008 against the accused petitioner and four others for investigation. The Investigating Officer after investigation of case had submitted charge sheet against the accused in the court of concerned Magistrate which was committed to the court of Sessions for trial which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2009, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hardoi for trial. The sessions trial is being fixed for arguments.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused petitioner submits that accused petitioner had also lodged written report of the same incident against the complainant and others with the different version at Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi. On the written report of the accused petitioner, the police of Police Station Sandi, registered a case at Crime No. 402-A of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. against the complainant and others for investigation. The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case had submitted final report. The accused petitioner being complainant had filed protest petition against final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,Hardoi on the protest petition of the accused petitioner had summoned the accused on the basis of material available in the case diary, vide order dated 28.4.2010. Both the cases are cross cases. In cross case, the accused are avoiding their appearance. Consequently, the learned Magistrate had issued bailable warrant against them. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submits that both the cases being cross cases should be heard and decided by the same court in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2001; Sudhir and others Vs. State of M.P. With Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2001; State of M.P. Vs. Lavkush and others, reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 387. Since the cross case registered on the basis of written report of the accused petitioner has not yet been committed, therefore, the proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2009, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hardoi be stayed till the committal of the cross case and the trial court be directed to dispose of both the cases simultaneously.;