Court No. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 327 of 2004 1- Shiv Raj Singh S/o Bahadur Singh Khati, at Presnt in service- 10B N, Intelligence, c/o 10 Infantry Brigade, C/o 56 APO 2- Krishna Singh Khati S/o Ranjeet Singh Khati, R/o Village Malla Garkha, P.O. Chaupta, Tehsil Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh ………….Applicants Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Pithoragarh 3. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Dharam Singh, R/o Village Malla Garkha, P.O. Chaupta, Tehsil Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh .… Respondents Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate, for the applicants. Learned A.G.A. for respondent no.1 & 2. Dated: February 11, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners, who are accused in Criminal Case no. 110 of 2003, Rajendra Singh vs. Shiv Raj Singh & another, under Sections 324, 325, 307 and 506 of I.P.C., pending before Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Pithoragarh, have sought the relief for issuing the direction to the court below for deciding both the case i.e. Criminal Case No. 110 of 2003, Rajendra Singh vs Shiv Raj Singh & another as well as Criminal Case No. 378 of 2004, State vs. Shiv Raj Singh & another, together. Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that another Criminal Case No. 378 of 2004, State vs. Shiv Raj Singh & another, is a police Challani case against the petitioners and in that case the petitioners are on bail. Now the charge sheet has been submitted in Criminal Case No. 378 of 2004. She has also submitted that Criminal Case No. 110 of 2003, Rajendra Singh vs. Shiv Raj Singh & another, is a complaint case and cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate in that case. She has further submitted that as both the cases relate to same incident, therefore, they be tried together either by respondent no. 2/Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Pithoragarh or by any other competent court of jurisdiction. The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be innocuous. I, therefore, direct the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh to take appropriate steps in this case and after consolidating both the cases together, may either try the same himself or transfer it to any other competent court of jurisdiction for the trial. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP