
Two complaints about the control of disgrace filed by different complainants against the same accused with different circumstances cannot be tested in one court proceedings by invoking section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows court proceedings on the same kind of offenses that appeared in the range of 12 months, said the High Court in the carnation.
“It is unimaginable how ordinary accusations in two complaints filed with two different complainants, even if they blame the commission of the same crime (Section 138 of the Tradable Inspells Act), they can seek the advantage of section 219 or 220 Cr.pc.
Judge Shivashankar Amarannavar made these observations and rejected the petition filed by Puttanagoud from the burst. The petitioner challenged the order taken by the court court in the Hangal Taluk when he refused to organize a single court of two registered separate offenses.
“Of course, it is true that the judge can try all or any number of fees framed against the accused, if the judge so desire, and also if the judge is of the opinion that the accused is probably not a prejudice, that such an attitude would only be that it would only be spent on the independent Only differently that they would only be based on the fact that they would only be based on the fact that they would only be based on two different causes.
In this case, the Court pointed out that it was not in the case of the petitioner that the two inspections were issued in connection with the same transaction or something in common between these two cases.
How the judge, the complainants and their witnesses have to be announced in both cases correctly noticed; And the documents in two cases must be marked separately and for all practical purposes, the merit of these two cases must be evaluated separately, the court said.
Published – May 5, 2025 9:01