Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh @ Billu vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 March, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 28172 of 2011
Date of decision : 21.03.2012
Balwinder Singh @ Billu .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Pannu, DAG, Punjab
for the State.
Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 to 7.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner-Balwinder Singh has approached this Court under Section 407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for transfer of criminal complaint No. 118 dated 29.08.2006 under Sections 452, 325, 323, 148 and 149 IPC titled as Bishan Singh versus Rupinder Singh and others, pending in the Court of Jasbir Singh, JMIC, Ludhiana to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sh. Sunil Kumar Arora, Ludhiana. Before filing this present petition, the petitioner had filed one application before the JMIC for transfer of this case for trial to Additional Sessions Judge, where FIR case was pending. In addition, he was filed an application before the Court of Additional Crl. Misc. No. M- 28172 of 2011 -2- Sessions Judge for clubbing the complaint case with the FIR, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate. The prayer of the petitioner in this regard stands declined. He, accordingly, has impugned this order through the present petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the impugned order. The reason given by the Sessions Court to decline the prayer of the petitioner, as can be made out, is that the petitioner has projected that both the occurrence had taken place at same time, place and this being cross cases should be disposed of simultaneously. The Sessions Court, however, did not find this submission to be carrying weight. It is noticed that the present trial, which was pending before the Court, the petitioner had not raised any plea that the injury to the accused party was caused being aggressor. The Court has further observed that even if it being assumed that the incident had occurred at the same place but these could not be taken as a cross cases.
The State counsel says that the initial incident had taken place in the street as is recorded in the FIR and the second incident took place in the Chaki as is mentioned in the complaint. Apparently, these two incidents cannot be said to be one. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all these pleas in his defence before the Sessions Court where they are facing prosecution.
In addition, counsel for the complainant also points out that the case before the Sessions Court is at the stage of conclusion. As the evidence has been recorded and the case is now fixed for Crl. Misc. No. M- 28172 of 2011 -3- arguments, it will not, therefore, be appropriate to transfer the case, which is pending before the Court of Sessions as it will also retard further progress of this case as well.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed before two precedents in the case of Sudhir versus State of M.P. 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 743 and Phool Singh versus State of Haryana and others 2002 (3) RCR (Criminal) 527. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has committed the case, which was though not excessively triable before the Sessions Court for being tried by the Sessions Court where the proceeding under Section 307 IPC was pending. Those were the cross cases. That has not been found to be so in the present case. In Phool Singh's case (Supra), clubbing of the cases of Sections 307 and 325 IPC with the cross case under Sections 323 and 324 IPC was ordered on the ground that it was in same incident and that was not found to be so in the present case. The ratio of the judgments of all these cases, therefore, would not apply to the facts of the present case.
The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
March 21, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE