Cross Cases Shall Be Tried By The Same Court To Deter Conflicting Judgements On Similar Set Of Facts: Kerala High Court

“ The judicial precedents underline the reason for such a procedure as (a) it prevents the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court, (b) it deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts (c) in reality, the case and the counter-case are different or conflicting versions of one incident to all intents and purposes", stated Justice K Babu

In the facts of the case, Petitioner 2 is de facto complainant in S.T. No.977/2022 (Crime No.399/2022) before Magistrate Court. Petitioner 1 (son of petitioner 2) is accused in S.C.No.945/2022 (Crime No.212/2022) is pending before the Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases. The parties sought committal of the case pending before the Magistrate to the Special Court since both cases are cross cases. An order was passed by the Magistrate stating that both cases were not cross cases. This order is challenged before the High Court.

The petitioners contend that both cases took place on the same day at the same place around the same time. The Court stated that the petitioners have prime facie proved that both cases are cross cases.

Relying upon a Madras High Court decision in Goriparthi Krishtamma and others v. Emperor (1929), it stated that case and counter case arising out of same affair should be tried by the same court. The Court referred to Krishna Pannadi v. Emperor (1930) to state that cross cases should be tried in quick succession by the same judge and that judgment should be pronounced only after hearing both the cases.

Relying upon Apex Court decisions in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P (1990) and Sudhir and Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh (2001), it held it is a legal requirement that the same court should try cross cases otherwise there would be conflicting decisions regarding the same incident.

“In the present case, this Court has held that prima facie, the petitioners could establish that the cases are case and counter case. Therefore, the case pending before the learned Magistrate is one which ought to be tried by the Court which tries the sessions case”, stated the Court.

Accordingly, the original petition was allowed. The Court set aside the order passed by the Magistrate Court. It directed the Magistrate to commit the case to the Sessions Court which shall make over the case to the Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates R Pradeep Kumar, Mathew Kuriakose

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor G Sudheer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 249

Case Title: Faizal v State of Kerala

Case Number: OP(CRL.) NO. 235 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Judgment