HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9400 of 2026 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Kesarwani, Sangam Lal Kesharwani Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tahjib Haidar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 NA528 No. 9400 of 2026 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad