Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: T.P. (Crl.) No.93/2025
State Vs. Rinku Lohiya & Ors.
10.04.2026
Present : Ms. Purnima Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/petitioner.
Ms. Snehlata Jha, Ld. Counsel for non
-applicants/respondents.
This application has been filed by the applicant for
seeking transfer/clubbing of two cases, one titled as ‘State Vs.
Ashok Kumar & Ors.’, FIR No.331/2023, U/s.323/308/325/34 IPC,
P.S. Vasant Kunj (South) pending before the court of Ms. Shefali
Barnala Tandon, Ld. ASJ-06, PHC, NDD and another titled as
‘State Vs. Rinku Lohiya & Ors.’, FIR No.332/2023,
U/s.451/323/34 IPC, P.S. Vasant Kunj (South) pending before the
court of Sh. Sidhant Sihag, Ld. ACJM-02, PHC, NDD to the court
of Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon, Ld. ASJ-06, PHC, NDD.
It is averred in the application that both the cases have
culminated from the same incident and therefore, needs be tried by
the same court. On that basis, it is prayed that the case pending
before the court of Sh. Sidhant Sihag, Ld. ACJM-02, PHC, NDD
titled as ‘State Vs. Rinku Lohiya & Ors.’, may be transferred to the
court of Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon, Ld. ASJ-06, PHC, NDD,
where the connected case titled as ‘State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.’,
FIR No.331/2023 is pending.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant/petitioner argued that it
is settled proposition of law that if counter cases are registered on
-- 1 of 4 --
the same incident, then both the cases are to be tried by the same
court.
In support of their plea, they have relied upon the
judgment titled as Nathi Lal and Others Vs. State of U.P. and
Another, 1990 (Supp) SCC 145.
I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused
the application. Vide this application, the applicant/petitioner has
sought transfer of one case titled as ‘State Vs. Rinku Lohiya &
Ors.’, FIR No.332/2023, pending before the court of Sh. Sidhant
Sihag, Ld. ACJM, PHC, NDD, to the court of Ms. Shefali Barnala
Tandon, Ld. ASJ-06, PHC, NDD, where other counter case bearing
FIR No.331/2023, titled as ‘State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.’ is
pending on the premise that both these cases were registered on the
same incident and filed by both the parties against each other.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Nathi Lal and
Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Supra), held and
authoritatively pronounced in para No.2, which reads as under :
“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
-- 2 of 4 --
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.”
Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
categorically held that when two counter cases are registered on the
basis of the same incident, then both these cases should be tried by
the same court to avoid the conflicting judgments being delivered
upon similar facts and circumstances.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the above cited judgments, when both these cases
have culminated from the same incident, both these cases should be
tried by the same court irrespective of the fact whether the said
-- 3 of 4 --
case is having any offence triable exclusively by the court of
session or not, because the court of session is competent to decide
the case of any nature.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the
application filed by the applicant is allowed. Case titled as ‘State
Vs. Rinku Lohiya & Ors.’, FIR No.332/2023, pending in the court
of Sh. Sidhant Sihag, Ld. ACJM-02, PHC, NDD is withdrawn from
the said court and is transferred to the court of Ms. Shefali Barnala
Tandon, Ld. ASJ-06, PHC, NDD, for 13.04.2026 at 02.00 pm, for
dealing with the same in accordance with law.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the court
of Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon, Ld. ASJ-06, PHC, NDD, on
13.04.2026 at 02.00 pm.
Ahlmad concerned is directed to send the file before
the transferee court forthwith. Copy of this order be sent to the
courts concerned.
Transfer Petition is disposed off accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
(Pitamber Dutt)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts/ND/10.04.2026
-- 4 of 4 --