Trial Court May Refuse Separation of Cross-Case Trials to Ensure Accused Presence and Prevent Collateral Interference.

The applicant (Anita) filed a complaint case (No. 3441/2015) against Opposite Party No. 2 (Satyendra Nath Shukla) and one Anuj Bajpai for assault and extortion occurring on 02.09.2013

This incident is a cross-case to Session Trial No. 2707/2025, where the applicant’s husband is an accused

On 17.10.2025, the CJM Lucknow directed that both cases be tried together and committed the complaint case to the Court of Sessions under Section 323 Cr.P.C.

However, the Sessions Judge returned the case because co-accused Anuj Bajpai was absconding

The applicant subsequently moved an application for separation of the trial against Anuj Bajpai to allow the case against the present parties to proceed to the Sessions Court; the CJM rejected this on 11.12.2025, noting the applicant had failed to take timely steps for the execution of warrants against the absconder

The applicant challenged this rejection before the High Court

1. Whether the Magistrate erred in law by refusing to separate the trial of the absconding co-accused to facilitate a joint trial with the cross-case pending in the Sessions Court

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial timeline when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued specific directions for the conclusion of the related Sessions Trial

The Court considered the procedure for cross-cases as established in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. [para. 6(i)] and Sudhir v. State of M.P. [para. 6(ii)], which mandate that cross-cases should be tried by the same judge to avoid conflicting findings.

It further looked at Section 223(d) Cr.P.C. regarding joint trials and Section 323 Cr.P.C. concerning the Magistrate’s power to commit cases to the Court of Sessions

The court also highlighted Section 204(4) Cr.P.C., which places the burden on the complainant to take necessary steps for process service, and the principle of judicial discipline regarding timelines mandated by the Supreme Court

The Court reasoned that the Magistrate could not be faulted for the delay, as the record indicated the applicant did not take the necessary steps to execute non-bailable warrants and Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings against the absconding accused, Anuj Bajpai, until very late (01.11.2025)

The Court noted that in a complaint case, the Magistrate must wait for a compliance report regarding the absconding accused before passing orders for separation or further commitment

Crucially, the Court found that the related Sessions Trial (ST No. 2707/2025) was already at an advanced stage with nine witnesses examined, and was subject to a strict six-month completion deadline set by the Supreme Court ending 26.08.2026

The Court observed that issuing a direction for separation at this late stage would likely interfere with the Supreme Court's mandate for a speedy conclusion of the primary trial

The Court held that the Magistrate correctly insisted on receiving compliance reports regarding the absconding accused before proceeding, especially since the applicant was responsible for the procedural delay

It was further held that the High Court would not facilitate a move that could jeopardize a trial timeline strictly monitored by the Supreme Court

The application was dismissed