IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29728 of 2009 1) Subodh Yadav, son of Khiju Yadav, 2) Sogarath Yadav, son of Dhanna Yadav, both of Samastipur, Tola Fatehpur, PS Sahebpur Kamal, District Begusarai – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Dasrath Yadav, son of Late Hari Lal Yadav, Samastipur, Tola Fatehpur, Ps Sahebpur Kamal, District Begusarai – Opposite parties. 4 9.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 27.6.2009 passed by F.T.C. I, Begusarai in S. T. No. 480/2008 by which their application to amalgamate S.T. No. 480/2008 arising out of Sahebpur Kamal PS Case No. 36/2006 and S.T. No. 422/2008 arising out of Sahebpur Kamal PS Case No. 59/2008 has been rejected. It appears that on 5.5.2006 at about 8 AM an occurrence took place for which three cases were instituted. Sahebpur Kamal PS Case No. 36/2006, Sahebpur Kamal PS Case No. 37/2006 and the Complaint Case No. 797©/2006 which was later registered as an FIR and numbered as Sahebpur Kamal PS case No. 59/2006. The later case is with respect to the same occurrence but the informant is someone else and he has specifically alleged that he was assaulted by petitioners and the other accused persons which resulted in injuries on his head. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these two cases, that is, Sahebpur Kamal PS Case Nos. 36 and 37 of 2006 have been amalgamated by order, dated 10.2.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. 2 No. 1091/2009. The court below has rejected the petitioners’ application on two grounds. It is firstly stated that that the informants of the case are two different persons and secondly the court below has rejected the petition on the ground that Sahebpur Kamal PS case No. 59/2006 relates to an offence under section 307 of the Penal Code. The test in my opinion is that if the Court comes to a conclusion that occurrence took place in the same transaction then the Court should hear the cases together. It is not important that 3 F.I.Rs./Complaints are filed by three different persons, rather the test would be that the allegations relate to the same transaction. In the circumstance this aspect should be examined by the Court below and the Court should thereafter pass appropriate orders. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)