Allahabad High Court
TAHJIB HAIDARversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI
Holding
The order dated 13 January 2026 is quashed and the trial court is directed to try both cases together.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash an order dated 13 January 2026 that rejected a request to conclude the trial of a criminal case together with a cross‑case arising from the same incident. The applicant argued that the order was passed without considering the facts and that both trials should be consolidated, citing the Apex Court’s decision in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. The High Court examined the procedure for cross‑cases, noting that the same judge must try both cases sequentially and render separate judgments based solely on the evidence of each case. Relying on the precedent, the Court held that the impugned order was erroneous. Consequently, the order was quashed and the trial court was directed to try both the Session Trial No. 637 of 2013 and Complaint Case No. 4517 of 2018 together, with immediate commitment of the case to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the consolidation of the two criminal proceedings should be quashed
- Whether cross‑cases arising from the same incident must be tried by the same judge sequentially as per Nathi Lal v. State of U.P.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- cross case trial
- consolidation of trials
- Section 528
- procedural law
- criminal procedure
- quash order
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9400 of 2026
Tahjib Haidar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Kesarwani, Sangam Lal
Kesharwani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is
taken on record.
Shri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated
13.1.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Saharanpur in
Session Trial No. 637 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323,
504, 506, IPC, whereby an application to conclude the trial along with cross
case of complaint case No. 4517 of 2018, arising out of case crime No. 192-
A of 2013 in which cognizance order has been passed on 29.10.2025, under
Sections 147, 379, 307, 504, IPC, which is pending in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Saharanpur, has been
rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been
passed without considering the facts, circumstances and position of law. It is
further submitted that two persons of applicant's side sustained injuries of
lacerated wound in the same incident and medical examination of two
injured persons were conducted on 9.4.2013 (after next day of the incident.
The case crime No. 192-A of 2013 of applicant's side was lodged as a cross
case.
Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in Nathi Lal Vs. State of U.P., (1990) SCC (Cri) 638.
NA528 No. 9400 of 2026
2
Learned A.G.A. has not denied the factual matrix of the case.
There is no other point for consideration except to consolidate two trial of
the same incident. Due to this reason, the opportunity to hear Private-
Opposite Party No. 2 is dispensed with.
The trial court observed that the impugned application has been filed to
delay in producing defence.
In Nathi Lal (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the procedure of trial of
cross case. Para-2 of the said judgment is quoted here-in-below:-
"2.We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present
where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must
try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of
evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he
must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross
case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but
reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must
thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding
each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that
particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked
into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross
case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has
been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in
any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But
both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one
after the other."
In view of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the
merit of the case, order dated 13.1.2026 is quashed. Trial court is directed to
decide both the cases i.e. Session Trial No. 637 of 2013 and complaint case
No. 4517 of 2018 together. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 4, Saharanpur is directed to commit the case immediately. The present
application is allowed accordingly.
September 29, 2026
T. Sinha
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
TRIPTI SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…