PAL @ PALLA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 22-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 716 
PAL @ PALLA 
V. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1830 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 210, 200, 202 
and 482 - Clubbing of cases uls. 210 - Two cases arising 
C out of the same incident - One on basis of charge-sheet filed 
by police - Other on basis of complaint - Accused in two 
cases not common - Accused in one case witnesses in the 
other and vice versa - Holding of common trial - Held: 
Provision contemplated in Section 210 not attracted - Version 
o in the complaint case and police report totally different, 
though, the incident was same - Accused also different in two 
separate proceedings - Prejudice is likely to be caused in a 
single trial where person was both accused and witness in 
view of two separate proceedings out of which trial arose -
E 
Thus, two trials should be held simultaneously but not as a 
single trial - Penal Cod~, 1860 - ss. 14 7, 323, 302. 
The appellant lodged a First Information Report 
against 'Y', 'P', '0', 'K' and 'KN' for committing murder of 
his father. The appellant and 'GS' filed a writ petition 
F praying for the investigation to be entrusted to an 
independent agency. During pendency, the Investigating 
Officer submitted a charge-sheet against two persons 
not named by the appellant in the FIR. Thereafter, the 
Investigating Officer filed another charge-sheet naming 
G 'GS' as an accused. The High Court held that the 
investigation was not proper, but the relief sought for by 
the appellant had become infructuous. Thereafter, the 
appellant filed a protest petition which was treated as a 
H 
716 
PAL @ PALLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
717 
complaint and statements were recorded by the 
magistrate u/ss. 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973. The magistrate issued summons to all 
the accused named in the complaint and in the FIR 
lodged by the appellant. The High Court upheld the order 
but directed that both the cases, one on the basis of the 
charge-sheet filed by the police and the other on the 
basis of the complaint filed by the appellant, would run 
simultaneously. Meanwhile, both the cases were 
committed to the Court of Session for trial. The accused 
persons filed an application before the Sessions Judge 
praying that the two cases be tried separately. The 
Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused 
named in "both the cases and the proceedings were 
conducted. The persons against whom the police 
submitted a charge-sheet were the witnesses named by 
the appellant in FIR. The prosecution examined the 
winesses. The appellant filed an application for closing 
the evidence of the prosecution but the same was 
rejected. The appellant then filed an application under 
Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for a direction that the trial 
of the two cases be held separately. The Single Judge of 
the High Court disposed of the application. Therefore, the 
appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 210 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 provides the procedure to be followed 
when there is a complaint case and police investigation 
in respect of the same offence. Although, under Section 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
210 Cr.P.C. the magistrate may try the two cases arising 
G 
out of a police report and a private complaint together, 
the same, contemplates a situation where having taken 
cognizance of an offence in respect of an accused in a 
complaint case, in a separate police investigation such 
H 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A a person is again made an accused, then the magistrate 
may inquire into or try together the complaint case and 
the case arising out of the police report as if both the 
cases were instituted bn a police report. (Paras 22 and 23] 
(726-G-H; 727 -D-F] 
8 
2.1 In the instant case, the accused are different in the 
two separate proceedings and the situation has, in fact, 
arisen where prejudice in all possibility is likely to be 
caused in a single trial where a person is both an 
c accused and a witness in view of the two separate 
proceedings out of which the trial arises. The version in 
the complaint case and the police report are totally 
different, though, arising out of the same incident. Thus, 
the two trials should be held simultaneously but not as a 
D single trial. [Para 23] (727-F-H; 728-A] 
2.2 The facts of the case also warrant that the two 
trials should

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.