Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123129 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23080 of 2025 Applicant :- Devendra Shukla Alias Davinder Prasad Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- B.S. Pandey,Kartikey Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., sheetala Prasad Pandey Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.03.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Basti in Case No. 251 of 2024, (State Versus Devendra Shukla and Others), as well as for quashing of the order dated 25.03.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2025, (Devendra Shukla Vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2024, under Sections 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Harraiya, District Basti, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.- Ist, Basti. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that regarding an incident dated 21.06.2023, the wife of applicant has lodged a first information report on 22.06.2023 against the opposite party No. 2 vide crime no. 0186 of 2023, under Sections 504, 323, 506 IPC. Later, the opposite party No. 2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 19.12.2023 and a first information report was registered against the applicant and others on 28.01.2024 vide crime no. 0017 of 2024, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 452 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that in case crime no. 0186 of 2023, lodged by the wife of applicant against the opposite party No. 2, prosecution evidence has already been recorded and trial of the case is at final stage. In case crime no. 17 of 2024, under Sections 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 IPC, an application was moved on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that the trial of the case crime no. 17 of 2024 be also conducted along with the trial of case crime no. 0186 of 2023. Learned counsel submitted that as the prosecution evidence has already been recorded in the trial of case crime no. 0186 of 2023 and the trial of case crime no. 17 of 2024 was at the stage of charge thus, there was no justification for conducting the trial of case crime no. 17 of 2024 along with the trial of case crime no. 0186 of 2023, but learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the opposite party No. 2 vide impugned order dated 18.03.2025 and trial of case crime no. 17 of 2024 was committed to the court of session. Applicant has preferred a revision against that order, which has been dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that as the trial of case crime no. 0186 of 2023, lodged by wife of applicant, is at final stage thus, it would not be in the interest of justice to commit the trial of case crime no. 17 of 2024 to the court of session. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application and argued that it is well settled position of law that if a cross-case has been registered, trial of both the cases must be conducted by one and the same court so that conflicting view may be avoided. In this connection, learned counsel has referred the case of Nathi Lal v. State of U.P., 1988 LawSuit(SC) 420. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Perusal of record shows that the wife of applicant has lodged a case against opposite party No. 2 vide crime no. 186 of 2023. The opposite party No. 2 has lodged impugned case as cross case vide crime no. 17 of 2024. It appears that trial of case crime no. 186 of 2023 was being conducted before Session Court. By impugned order dated 18.03.2025, the case crime no. 17 of 2024, lodged by the opposite party No. 2, has been committed to the court of session so that the trial of crime no. 17 of 2024 be conducted with case crime no. 0186 of 2023, lodged by the wife of applicant. Merely because the trial of case crime no. 0186 of 2023, lodged by wife of applicant, is at advanced stage and the case lodged by opposite party No. 2 is at the stage of charge, it cannot be said in the interest of justice that the trial of both the cases must be conducted separately. In the case of Nathi Lal (supra), it was held that where there are cross-cases, both the cases must be tried in the same court. After considering entire facts of the matter and position of law, learned Magistrate has allowed the application of opposite party No. 2 by a reasoned order. Similarly the revisional court has dismissed the revision of the applicant after considering all relevant facts and position of law. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or any miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference by invoking inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 7. The application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad