Supreme Court directs mandatory disclosure of cross-cases in chargesheets to prevent trial delays

The Supreme Court has directed that every chargesheet, challan and final report filed in criminal cases must clearly mention whether there are any cross-case or other related case arising from the same incident. [Lalji Mishra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.]

A Bench Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan stated that a clear disclosure of whether any cross-case or any other case linked to the same incident exists, must be included in the chargesheet, challan or final report at the time these documents are filed before the trial court.

The apex court noted that such timely disclosure would help avoid procedural complications and delays.

"This will enable the Court concerned to take appropriate steps, and get the trials in those cases clubbed, if required. The process will save criminal justice system from creating an anomalous situation and also check delays," said the Court.

The direction came while hearing an appeal challenging a decision of the Allahabad High Court.

The appellants sought to club two criminal cases that arose from the same incident in 2009. Both cases were cross-versions filed by opposing parties, each lodging an FIR against the other.

Such cross-cases generally stem from the same sequence of events and often involve common witnesses.

Therefore, courts generally hear them together to prevent contradictory findings.

While granting relief, the Supreme Court observed that neither the prosecution nor the parties had informed the trial courts that a cross-case arising from the same incident was pending before another court.

Because of this oversight, one case had reached its final stage while the other had not even begun, creating what the Court described as an "avoidable situation".

In this case, the main matter was being tried as a sessions case and had reached the stage of final arguments.

The parallel case arising from the cross-FIR was pending before a magistrate and had not yet proceeded to the stage of recording evidence.

The appellants argued that since both cases originated from the same incident, they should be tried together before the sessions court.

The High Court had denied their request, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

They informed the Court that they would not seek to recall or cross-examine any witnesses who had already been examined in the sessions trial, and were seeking only the transfer of the cross-case so that it could be tried together with the main case.

The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh, stated that they had no objection to the trials being clubbed.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the case pending before the magistrate be transferred to the Court of the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge in Bahraich, where the sessions trial was underway.

The Court ordered that both cases be tried together and that the judgments be delivered at the same time.

The petitioners were represented by Advocates Kushagra Pandey, Ved P Singh, Ankita Gupta and RC Shukla.

Advocates Namit Saxena, Vishal Arun Mishra, Divyangi Gupta, Kirtivardhan Singh, Rupali Panwar, Ashok Sharma, Sandeep Mehta, Avinash Kumar Singh and Dinesh Kumar appeared for the respondents.

[Read Order]