G.K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) ADMITTED . With the consent of both the learned Counsel, the case is disposed of at this stage today.
(2.) THE petitioner alongwith 3 other persons has been challaned under Sections 147, 323, 341, IPC. After recording evidence of both the sides, the arguments have been heard but the judgment has not been pronounced on the ground that cross case is pending. Shri Dhankhar argued that one of the accused Aslam lodged a FIR which was registered under Section 147, 323 IPC The Police submitted final report. Aslam filed a complaint and on 8 -2 -1988 the court issued process against 8 persons. Two accused bad been served and the remaining are yet to be served. The two accused who have been served have also absconded and proceeding under Section 446, Cr.P.C. are pending, So in cross -case time will be consumed in getting the service on other accused. It was also argued that the petitioner is not the complainant. He has not been examined under Section 202, Cr.P.C. by the complainant. So there is no necessity to wait for the private complaint and the case of the petitioner can be disposed off.
(3.) I have considered the arguments. The lower court has relied on the case of Pyare Lal and Ors. v. State 1987 RLR (II) 379. In this case of Pyarelal's (supra) the observation of this Court is that as far as possible and practicable, trial in two cross -cases arising out of one and the same incident should be held and concluded together.;