MOHD .YAMIN,J. - (1.) This is a petition against the order dated 1 -6 -1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sikar in Sessions Case No. 33/97 by which charges against the petitioners have been framed.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. On the basis of a Parcha Bayan of Chand Khan recorded on 5 -11 -1996 First Information Report No. 210/96 was registered for offences under Sections 452 and 323 IPC against Alladeen, Ismail, Ayub and Farooq who are petitioners before me. It was alleged that they entered into the house of the complainant and gave beatings to him as well as to his Bhabhi Smt. Jannat, Immediately thereafter they as well as some 7 or 8 persons armed with weapons entered into the hut in field and gave beatings with barchis and sticks. The two places of occurrence are different and the distance is about 2 kms. from each other. However, after investigation, Police charge -sheeted the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 325, 326 and 307 IPC. Ismail accused petitioner had also lodged FIR No. 211/96againstAleemKhan. Ibrahim Khan and other persons alleging that they gave beatings to his 75 years old father but final report was submitted in this case. Then a complaint was preferred and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after conducting the enquiry took cognizance against the opposite party. The case instituted upon the FIR No. 210/96wascommitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge where it was pleaded that the cross case may also be tried together and the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order to call the cross case.
(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no whisper in the parch a bayan of Chand Khan that 7 or 8 persons who are alleged to have taken part in incident had committed any offence. It has further been submitted that the distance between the two places is about 2 kms. and hence they are two separate incidents. He submitted that separate cases should have been registered for the different incidents. He also submitted that no case punishable under Sections 307, 148, 325/149, 326/149 and 307/149 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of this case and charges in the present case should be quashed. So the basic argument is that two incidents are separate and the petitioners should not have been charged for the offences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khivsingh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan1 has been relied upon in which it was held that two distinct offences committed by the sets of accused should be tried separately. Sanwal Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan2 has been relied upon in which it was held that when two incidents took place at different places at two different times they could not be said to have been committed in the course of same transaction and hence accused persons could not be charged and tried jointly. It has also been submitted that offences as alleged by the prosecution are not made out and the petitioners should be discharged. Reliance has also been placed on Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr3 and State of 'Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni4. 1. WLN (DC) 1978 page 316. 2. 1995 Cr. L.J. 3549. 3. 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 505. 4. AIR2000 SC 2583.;