Patna High Court – Orders
Sanjay Kapar vs The State Of Bihar on 2 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42708 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2020 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Sanjay Kapar S/O Methur Kapar R/O Vill.- Pathaniya Kot, P.s.- Riga,
Dist.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ganesh Kumar Singh S/O Late Sukhdev Singh R/O Vill.- Pathaniya
Kot, P.s.- Sahiyara, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate
Mrs.Madhubala Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-07-2025
Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. This application has been preferred under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’)
as to quash the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-XV, Sitamarhi in Session Trial No.
66/22 + 515/22 + 86/23, arising out of Sahiyara P.S. Case
No. 91/2020, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 354, 307, 302 of the I.P.C.
and 27 of the Arms Act, whereby learned trial court has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42708 of 2025(2) dt.02-07-2025
2/4
pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioner under
section 348 of BNSS for summoning Dr. Uday Bhanu Singh,
Medical Officer, community Health Centre, Riga to prove the
injury report of Sanjay Kapar (petitioner), which has been
prepared by him.
3. After arguing at length, Mr. Verma, learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission
to withdraw this application with liberty to take appropriate
steps, if any, before the learned trial court itself.
4. At this stage, Mr. Verma, by referring legal report
of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Nathilal and
Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 1990
(Supp.) SCC 145 and State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal
(Dead) and Others reported in (2003) 9 SCC 426,
submitted that at least case of petitioner (S. Tr. No. 74/2024,
arising out of Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 92 of 2020) be heard
together as cross case/counter case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State is present.
6. It would be apposite to reproduce para 7 of
Mishrilal case (supra), which reads as under:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42708 of 2025(2) dt.02-07-2025
3/4
“7. Undisputedly, accused Mishrilal lodged the report
to the police vide Ext. D-8 over the same incident
which happened on 5-3-1987, in which he had
clearly stated that the injuries were sustained by him
and his son Madhusudan at the hands of the
prosecution party. It is also not disputed that on the
strength of the complaint lodged by Mishrilal,
investigation was also carried out and challan was
filed, namely, Crime Case No. 52 of 1987 under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 324 IPC against the
prosecution party which is pending for disposal
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. In
the said challan, the prosecution party is stated to be
the aggressor. This Court in Nathi Lal v. State of
U.P. [1990 Supp SCC 145 : 1990 SCC (Cri)
638] pointed out the procedure to be followed by
the trial court in the event of cross-cases. It was
observed thus: (SCC pp. 145-46, para 2)
“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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42708 of 2025(2) dt.02-07-2025
4/4
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.”
7. In view of the aforesaid submission of Mr.
Verma, this application stands dismissed as withdrawn,
however with aforesaid liberty.
8. However, learned trial court is directed to
conclude the trial of both the cases (where petitioner is
informant) treating it as case and counter case in view of
Mishrilal case (supra).
9. This application stands disposed of with
aforesaid direction.
10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to learned
trial court immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T