Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-1343-2018
(ANIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 20-02-2018
Mr.Ramesh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.C.K.Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of sh Criminal Procedure to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court e and to set aside the order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Judicial ad Magistrate First Class, Deori in Criminal Case No.267/2011.
Pr
2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioners are facing trial before a hy the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar (at Crime No.196/2010 and 197/2010 registered at Police Station, Deori) in Criminal Cases ad No.139/2011 and 267/2011. The petitioners in filed an application M under section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for joint trail of these cases, which was dismissed on 07.11.2017.
of
3. It is claimed that during "removal of encroachment rt movement" by the administration and Police, the complainant- ou Shailendra, Tahsildar was abused, assaulted and obstructed from discharging his official duty. The accused persons also pelted stones C and thereby caused offences under sections 148, 147, 294, 323, 186, h 353, 332 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code. After filing of the challan, ig Criminal Case No.139/2011 has been registered against the accused H persons, namely, Anil Jain, Sunil Jain, Sandeep Jain and Dinesh Jain and four ladies and other 10-15 persons of village Deori.
4. In Crime No.197/2010 lodged on the same day by Constable 1016 Mr.Raghvendra, it is alleged that while he was on duty in connection with removal of encroachment movement alongwith Sub Divisional Magistrate Shri Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer, Maravi the accused persons including, Anil Jain, Sunil Jain, Sandeep Jain, Dinesh Jain and four ladies and other 10-15 persons of village assaulted Tahsildar and abused by obscene words. When he asked to stop abusing, Tahsildar was assulted by the accused persons. They also pelted stones. The accused-Anil armed with sword intended to kill the complainant-Raghvendra on his head. He sustained injuries and fell on the ground. The accused persons also pelted stones to the workers and public servants who had gone to remove the encroachment. Others sustained injuries. Therefore, offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 353, 332 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered. By filing of the charge-sheet, Criminal Case No.267/2011 has been registered before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deori.
sh
5. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the e offences alleged arise out of the same incident, at the same place and ad by the same accused persons and, therefore, the application was filed Pr by the petitioners for a joint trial in both the case .
6. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deori disallowed a the aforesaid application under section 220 of the Code of Criminal hy Procedure. Hence, this petition.
ad
7. Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to M joinder of charges of offences committed by the same person. It applies to a case in which the different offences are parts of one of transaction. If the offences are committed in course of same transaction, they may be tried together, although they are more than 3 rt in number and extending over a period of more than a year. ou
8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in C Criminal Revision No.1337/2012, this Court vide order dated h 23.01.2013 discharged the accused persons from the offences under ig sections 307 of I.P.C. or 307/149 of I.P.C. relating to Crime H No.197/2010, therefore, the Criminal Case No.267/2010 is pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deori.
9. Keeping in view the provisions of section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is an enabling provision, permits the Court to try all the offences together in one trial. The Court may or may not try all the offences together in one trial. If the Court tries the offences separately, it does not commit any illegality, as has been held in the case of Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 211.
10. As the trial is in advance stage and there are two different complaints and different injuries have been received and keeping in view the large number of accused persons, further complications should not occur, the trial of Criminal Case No.139/2011 and 267/2011 may be tried separately, but it is advised to try both simultaneously and judgment be pronounced on the same day. It would also be kept in mind that the accused may be charged and tried for every distinct offence, but the Court may not impose sentence for every conviction. It should impose sentence for the graver offence proved.
11. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.
e sh
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)
ad
JUDGE
Digitally signed by RAJESH T
MAMTANI
Date: 2018.02.27 02:17:19 -08'00' Pr a hy RM ad M of rt ou C h ig H