Nitin Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 September, 2020
| Citation | (2020) 09 AHC CK 0010 |
| Date of Judgment | 10 September, 2020 |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Case Type | APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 25681 of 2018 |
| Appellant | Nitin Jaiswal |
| Respondent | State of U.P. & Ors. |
| Bench | Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J |
| Referred | Sections 143, 456 and 427 I.P.C. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
In September 2020, a case titled Nitin Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another involved several significant events. On October 21, 2012, Nitin Jaiswal took the initiative to file a first information report (FIR) against Nirmal Singh Garewal and two others under Sections 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the FIR, the accused individuals had assaulted Jaiswal and his family members using sticks and swords.
In response, the accused parties lodged a counter FIR against Jaiswal and five others, invoking Sections 147, 458, and 427 of the IPC. This led to two separate cases pending in different courts in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.
In 2018, Jaiswal sought relief by submitting a petition to the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The petition requested the transfer of the counter FIR against him to the court where his initial FIR had been filed.
Considering the circumstances, the Allahabad High Court granted Jaiswal’s petition and ordered the transfer of the cross-FIR to the court where his original FIR was pending. By this decision, the court aimed to streamline the legal proceedings and ensure both cases were handled together in the same court.
Arguments given by the petitioner in Nitin Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 September, 2020-
The petitioner, Nitin Jaiswal, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in the Allahabad High Court on 10 September, 2020. The petition was filed against the State of Uttar Pradesh and Nirmal Singh Garewal, the respondent.
The petitioner’s argument in the petition was that the trial of the case against him in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2013 should be concluded expeditiously. The petitioner stated that he had been facing trial in the case for over seven years, and that the trial had been delayed due to dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent.
The petitioner also argued that the trial of the case against him should be concluded expeditiously because there was a cross-case pending between the petitioner and the respondent. The cross-case was filed by the respondent against the petitioner, his father, and his brother under Sections 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioner submitted that it was in the interest of justice that both the cases, the one filed by the petitioner and the one filed by the respondent, should be tried by the same court and concluded expeditiously. The petitioner argued that this would prevent any miscarriage of justice.
The High Court accepted the petitioner’s argument and directed the trial court to conclude the trial of the case against the petitioner expeditiously. The High Court also directed the trial court to conclude the trial of the cross-case filed by the respondent against the petitioner, his father, and his brother.
Arguments given by the respondent in Nitin Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 September, 2020-
- The respondent argued that the applicant had filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) with mala fide intention to delay the trial in Case No. 123 of 2013, which is pending against him and his two sons.
- The respondent further argued that the applicant had not made out any case for quashing the order of the Sessions Judge, Bareilly, dated 13.7.2017, transferring Case No. 1716 of 2016, under Sections 456, 427 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), from the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly to the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.
- The respondent also argued that the trial court had already directed the parties to conclude the trial in Case No. 123 of 2013 expeditiously on a day-to-day basis preferably within a period of six months. However, the trial had not yet been concluded due to the dilatory tactics played by the applicant and his family members.
Order of the Court
In this case, Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J., has addressed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred to as “the Code”) by the applicant. The purpose of the application is to quash the order dated 25.06.2016 issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, in Complaint Case No. 1716 of 2016. The order in question pertains to the rejection of the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the proceedings until the complaint case is committed to the Court of Sessions.
The background of the case reveals that both the applicant and the respondents are involved in cross cases, namely Complaint Case No. 1716 of 2016 and Session Trial No. 123 of 2013, respectively. The applicant sought an adjournment of the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1716 of 2016 until it is committed to the Court of Sessions. However, the learned Magistrate turned down the application on 25.06.2016.
The applicant’s counsel argues that the order of the learned Magistrate is unlawful and should be nullified. He contends that since the cases are cross cases, both should be heard simultaneously by the same court. To support this argument, he cites the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sudhir v. State of M.P. [(2001) 4 SCC 387].
On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. representing the State opposes the application, asserting that the Magistrate’s order is justified. According to him, the two cases are not cross cases, so there is no impediment for the learned Magistrate to proceed with the trial in Complaint Case No. 1716 of 2016.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J., refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sudhir v. State of M.P. and highlights the principle that cross cases should be disposed of by the same court with judgments pronounced on the same day. Consequently, both cases should be tried expeditiously by the same Judge, and the judgment should not be delivered until the hearing of both cases is completed.
In this context, the Hon’ble Judge emphasizes that the present situation involves cross cases, necessitating the proceedings in both cases to be handled jointly by the same court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate’s order rejecting the application for adjournment is deemed illegal and is set aside.
In light of this ruling, the application is allowed, and the order dated 25.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 1716 of 2016, stands quashed.
Furthermore, the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1716 of 2016 alongside Session Trial No. 123 of 2013 and dispose of both cases promptly.The concerned parties are instructed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 15.10.2020 to facilitate the further proceedings.
Aditya Dikshit, Amity Law School, Amity University, Lucknow, An intern under Legal Vidhiya.
