IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31634 of 2011 Banti Narayan Jha @ Banti Narayan Sharma & Ors. Versus The State Of Bihar & Anrs. ----------- 2/ 28/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner has sought for amalgamation of two cases bearing complaint case no. 64/2004 as well as Nanpur P.S. Case No. 28/04 which has been refused by the learned lower court as well as by the revisional court vide order dated 23.05.2011 passed in Cr. Revision no. 143/2007. Simple submission happens to be that for the same cause of action, Nanpur P.S. Case No.28/2004 has been instituted by one Baidyanath Lal against five accused persons while subsequently at his instance, the complaint petition no. C64/2004 has been filed by one Manju Devi wife of Tara Kant Jha against 10 accused persons. Further submitted that the learned lower court had taken a unique method whereunder he summoned common accused of both the cases in Nanpur P.S. Case No. 28/2004 while remaining accused of complaint case no. 64/2004 have been summoned with regard to complaint case. Be that as it may, the allegation of both the cases 2 that means to say Annexure-1, the FIR of Nanpur P.S. Case No.28/2004 as well as Complaint Petition no. C64/2004 appears to be at variance along with names of the accused and on account thereof do not fulfill the requirement of sub- section 1 as well as sub-section 2 of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. and consequent thereupon, the prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner is found to be non maintainable and is accordingly, rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)