Anil v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:02.08.2025 ANIL ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL
 Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate (Through VC) for the respondents.

*** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)
  The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for quashing of the Impugned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by ASJ Bhiwani affirming the Impugned order dated 20.8.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by SDJM Siwani on the application dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) moved by the petitioner under section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to commit the case CHI-220-2020 titled as "State of Haryana versus Satbir and ors" pending before Ld. SDJM Siwani arising out of FIR no.152 dated 26.5.2020 U/s 147/148/149/323/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Siwani (Annexure P-6) to the Court of Sessions Bhiwani so that the trial of the above said case be held alongwith the case SC-149-2020 titled as "State of

-2Haryana versus Anil etc" arising out of FIR no.149 dated 25.5.2020 U/s 147/148/149/323/324/341/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Siwani (Annexure P-5) because both the above said FIR are version and cross-version arising out of same incident.

2.

Reply by way of affidavit of Aryan Chaudhary, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Siwani, Bhiwani on behalf of respondent-State has been filed which is taken on record wherein it is stated that both the cases are not cross cases and facts of both the cases are not two conflicting versions of the same incident. It is stated that genesis of both the occurrences are not similar as the time of incident in FIR No.149 dated 24.05.2020 has been shown as 7.00 P.M. which is triable by the Court of Session and the time of incident in FIR No.152 dated 26.05.2020 has been shown as 6.30 P.M which is triable by the Court of Magistrate and as such, the cases cannot be clubbed. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the occurrences are in continuation and involves the same parties and are cross version of each other and moreover, the incident has taken place on the same spot and in continuation of the events.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

5.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that since the genesis of aforesaid FIRs are in continuation of the same occurrence at the same spot and above all, involving the same parties, therefore, the present petition is allowed and both the cases are ordered to be heard together and the same is committed to the Sessions Court concerned for its disposal.

-36.

Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

02nd August, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No