Kela And Another vs Umed Singh And Others on 6 February, 2009

Crl.Rev.No.1390 of 2008                                                   1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH.



                                        Crl.Rev.No.1390 of 2008
                                        Date of Decision: 6.2.2009

Kela and another                                            .....Petitioners

                                Vs.
Umed Singh and others                                       ....Respondents

                                ....

CORAM :      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

                                ****

Present :    Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vivek Goyal,Advocate
for respondents no.2 to 11.

….

RAJIVE BHALLA, J

The petitioners, challenge an order dated 10.7.2008, whereby

the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, has directed

consolidation of the State case with the complaint case.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated

20.1.2006, passed by the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi

Dadri, complaint No.127-1C of 1999 was consolidated with the State

criminal case No.1321 of 1999. However, pursuant to the impugned order,

the learned Magistrate has modified this order and consolidated the State

case with the complaint case. It is submitted that in view of the provisions

of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint case is to

be tried together with the State case and not vice-versa and even otherwise,

the trial Court has no power to modify its earlier order.
Crl.Rev.No.1390 of 2008 2

Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the

impugned order does not suffer from any error, as the respondents are

entitled to lead their defence by way of pre-charge evidence in the

complaint case and, therefore, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri was justified in passing the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

impugned order, as also the order dated 20.1.2006.

It is an established principle of law that a criminal Court has no

jurisdiction to review or modify its order, except to the extent of correcting

clerical arithmetical mistakes etc. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Charkhi Dadri, therefore, had no jurisdiction to modify the order dated

20.1.2006. Even otherwise, the impugned order has been passed by

disregarding the provisions of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. As a result, the order dated 10.7.2008, insofar as it modifies the

order dated 20.1.2006 is set aside and the present petition is allowed in the

aforementioned terms.

6.2.2009                                           (RAJIVE BHALLA)
GS                                                      JUDGE