Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73757 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42344 of 2024 Applicant :- Uday Nath Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lakshman Prasad Ojha Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Raghvendra Pratap, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Lakshman Prasad Ojha, the learned counsel representing first informant- opposite party-2. 2. Perused the record. 3. It transpires from record that Sessions Trial No. 409 of 2024 (State Vs. Uday Nath Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No. 189 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station- Tharwai, District-Prayagraj and Sessions Trial No. 939 of 2022 (State Vs. Suraj Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2019, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station-Tharwai, District- Prayagraj were pending in the Courts of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-15, Prayagraj and Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-I, Prayagraj respectively. 4. Subsequently an application dated 29.10.2024 was filed by applicant-Uday Nath Mishra, who is an accused in Case Crime No. 189 of 2019/Session Trial No. 409 of 2024 (State Vs. Uday Nath Mishra), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station- Tharwai, District-Prayagraj before the Sessions Judge, Prayagraj with the prayer that aforementioned Sessions trial be consolidated in one Court for joint trial as occurrences giving rise to aforementioned Sessions Trial are part of the same transactions. 5. Aforementioned application came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge, Prayagraj, vide order dated 13.11.2024 on the finding that the occurrences giving rise to aforementioned case crime numbers are different, the nature of crime in both the case crime numbers is different, as per the report submitted by the Presiding Officer. It is apparent that no opinion has been formed by the Presiding Officer that aforementioned Sessions Trial are cross versions of the same occurrence, the concerned Magistrate, while committing the case to the Court of Sessions has also not observed that both the criminal cases are the cross versions of the same occurrences or are related to each other. On the above findings, Court below concluded that the application dated 29.10.2024 is misconceived inasmuch as, the same has been engineered only to delay the conclusion of trial. 6. Thus feeling aggrieved by order dated 13.11.2024, applicant- Uday Nath, who is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below has now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for applicant in challenge to the order impugned submits that the impugned order is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. According to the learned counsel for applicant since both the incidents giving rise to aforementioned criminal proceedings i.e. case crime number/Sessions Trial are part of the same transactions, therefore, in view of the law contained in Section 6 of Evidence Act i.e. Rule of Res-gestae, both the trial need to be tried together by the same Court. In short, in view of above, it is a joint trial, which is required to be contradicted. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that Court below, while passing the order impugned has clearly ignored the aforesaid aspect of the matter, which has vitiated the order impugned. As such, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. 8. Per contra, the the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Lakshman Prasad Ojha, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present application. They submit that the order impugned in present application is perfectly just and legal and therefore, not liable to be interfered with by this Court. According to the learned A.G.A., the application dated 29.10.2024 was filed by an accused before Court below, which was otherwise not maintainable. The first informant of either of the case crime numbers referred to above, have not approached the Court below with the plea that since both the cases are cross versions of each other or the part of the same transaction, therefore, the joint trial is needed. Apart from above, the findings returned by Sessions Judge, while passing the order impugned dated 13.11.2024 could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant as being illegal, perverse or erroneous. It is by now well settled that if the findings have not been dislodged, the conclusion cannot be altered. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Lakshman Prasad Ojha, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 11. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 12. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Vinay Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad