- (1.) The applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 17 November 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-V Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 84/10 (State vs. Girraj and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 325 and 326 IPC rejecting the application for consolidating the case with complaint Case No. 2394 of 2011 (Gopal Sharma vs. Smt. Anita and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 336 IPC.
(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Court below committed an error in rejecting the application merely on the statement made by the other side that it is not a cross case, whereas, it was incumbent upon the Court to have satisfied itself as to whether, it was a cross case and, that the persons would not be prejudicially affected if the cases be tried together. It is further sought to be submitted that under Section 223 of the Code, primary condition is that the person should have been accused either for the same offence or different offence "committed in the course of same transaction", thus where there is commonality with purpose or design, and where there is a continuity of action then all those persons involved can be accused for the same and different offences committed in the course of same transaction.
(3.) In order to understand the above issue, it is useful to refer Section 223 (d) of the Code which reads as under: 223. What persons may be charged jointly.--The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:-- (a) xx (b) xx (c) xx (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction; (e) xx (f) xx (g) xx;