Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court

"Unless co-accused Anuj Bajpai appears before the trial court, the case cannot be tried together because it is a complaint case... any direction issued by this Court at this stage amounts to interference in the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court," Allahabad High Court, in a judgment dated May 27, 2026, held that a complaint case cannot be committed to the Sessions Court for clubbing with a cross-case if a co-accused remains absconding due to the complainant's failure to take timely legal steps.

A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that where the Supreme Court has already fixed a strict timeline for the conclusion of the main sessions trial, any mid-trial procedural interference by the High Court would be inappropriate.

The applicant, Anita Pandey, filed a complaint case under Sections 323, 384, 504, and 506 of the IPC against Satyendra Nath Shukla and Anuj Bajpai, alleging they assaulted her family. This matter was a cross-case to a Session Trial where the applicant’s husband was the accused for an incident occurring on the same day. While the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) initially directed both cases to be tried together, the Sessions Judge returned the complaint case because one co-accused, Anuj Bajpai, was absconding and had not been produced.

The primary question before the court was whether the Magistrate erred in refusing to separate the trial of the absconding co-accused to facilitate the committal of the complaint case to the Sessions Court. The court was also called upon to determine if such a transfer was permissible when a time-bound trial was already underway in the cross-case as per Supreme Court directions.

Absence of Co-Accused Hinders Committal of Complaint Case

The Court noted that the Sessions Judge had rightly returned the case to the Magistrate's court. It was observed that without ensuring the presence of all accused persons in a complaint case, the matter could not be committed to the Court of Sessions to be tried alongside the cross-case. The bench emphasized that the procedural requirements for committal under Section 323 of the CrPC must be strictly followed.

"The complaint has been filed by the applicant against two accused i.e. opposite party no.2 and Anuj Bajpai and unless the compliance report is obtained by the Magistrate, he could not have passed the order for separating the case."

Complainant’s Failure to Take Steps Against Absconder

The Court took a serious view of the fact that the applicant had not taken the necessary steps to ensure the appearance of the co-accused. Although non-bailable warrants and orders under Section 82 of the CrPC were issued as early as 2016, the applicant only took steps for their execution in late 2025. The bench found that the delay in the proceedings was primarily attributable to the applicant's own lethargy in pursuing the absconding accused.

Court Refuses to Interfere with Supreme Court Timeline

A significant factor in the Court's decision was an order passed by the Supreme Court on February 26, 2026, in related proceedings. The Apex Court had directed the Trial Court to make every endeavor to conclude the main Session Trial within six months. Justice Brij Raj Singh noted that the trial was already at a final stage with nine witnesses examined and the timeline set to expire in August 2026.

"Hon’ble Supreme Court is minutely observing the day-to-day progress of the trial... therefore, any direction issued by this Court at this stage amounts to interference in the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court."

Distinction Between Complaint Cases and Police Reports

The Court highlighted that in a complaint case, the burden of taking steps for the service of summons and execution of warrants lies heavily on the complainant under Section 204(4) of the CrPC. Since the compliance report regarding the absconding accused was still awaited, the Magistrate's decision to reject the separation of the case and issue fresh processes was deemed legally sound and within the bounds of judicial discretion.

"It is the applicant who had not taken steps, therefore, the Magistrate has passed a fresh order for taking steps so that compliance report can be obtained."

The High Court concluded that there was no illegality or infirmity in the CJM's order dated December 11, 2025. It held that the application lacked merit as the applicant could not seek the benefit of clubbing cases while simultaneously failing to perform the procedural duties required to bring all accused before the court. The application under Section 482 of the CrPC was accordingly rejected.

Date of Decision: 27 May 2026