C.P. SINHA, J. This application under section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been filed by 10 accused persons against whom cognizance has been taken under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in Case No. 333 C2 of 1970 by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Begusarai under his order dated 14-4-1970. The prayer in the petition is for quashing of the proceeding of this case (No. 333 C2 of 1970) which is at present said to be pending in the Court of Shri S.N. Kamal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Begusarai. 2. The short facts, relevant for the present purpose, are to the effect. The Magistrate issued rule under section 144 of the Code in respect of plot no. 44-7 pertaining to khata no. 29 in village Mukhtiarpur, district Monghyr, on 2.3.1970 on receiving a police report regarding likelihood of disturbance of peace between these petitioners and Magni Rai, Ram Kripal Singh along with others as the second party. After this rule, under the orders of the Magistrate one constable and a chaukidar were deputed to the land on 20.3.1970 for maintaing peace. It was alleged that in the night between 25th and 26th of March, 1970 these petitioners along with several others entered upon this land with spade and demolished its existing 3-4 ridges, unmindful of the protest raised by the constable not to do so. Next morning the constable sent news through the chaukidar about this incident to the police station where the necessary station diary entry was made on 26.3.1970. After necessary enquiry the officer-incharge of the police station submitted a report to the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 27.3.1970 for action under section 188, Indian Penal Code against these petitioners (first party). After receiving that report, the concerned Magistrate Mr. S. N. Thakur, who had issued this rule, submitted a written complaint (annexure 1 to present petition) to the Sub-divisional Magistrate recommending action against them under section 188, Indian Penal Code. After looking into the complaint, learned sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance in the case under section 188, Indian Penal Code against these petitioners on 14.4.1970 and transferred it to another Magistrate for disposal. 3. On 26.3.1970 above Magni Rai filed a complaint against 28 persons, including these 10 petitioners (nos. After looking into the complaint, learned sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance in the case under section 188, Indian Penal Code against these petitioners on 14.4.1970 and transferred it to another Magistrate for disposal. 3. On 26.3.1970 above Magni Rai filed a complaint against 28 persons, including these 10 petitioners (nos. 1 to 10) (annexure 2 to the present petition) before the Sub-divisional Magistrate under section 144, 143, 426, 193 and 447 Indian Penal Code regarding this very incident. In this complaint he alleged that that night those 28 accused came to this land armed with lathies and bhala and broke the ridges ignoring the protest that the constable and the chaukidar on deputation raised against it. He further alleged that when he (complainant) asked them not do so accused Bhola Rai ran on him with his bhala but he any how escaped his assault. Learned Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance on 4. 6.1970 under these sections 143 etc. Indian Penal Code against these 28 persons and sent the case (No. 246 of 1970) to another court for disposal. As it appears, on that very day, i.e., -4.6.1970 a petition was filed on behalf of the accused persons of this case objecting to the two cases running simultaneously. The Magistrate, however, rejected it saying that they had no locus standi at that stage nor did he find any bar to them proceeding simultaneously. 4. There is no dispute that both these cases are at present awaiting disposal in the same court, namely, Mr. S.M. Kamal, Magistrate, First Class, Begusarai. As already observed, the present application under section 561 A of the Code is for quashing of the proceeding in the aforesaid case no. 333 C2 of 1970. Though his prayer is to quash this proceeding but Mr. Jugal Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, in course of his arguments, has urged that he would not press that prayer and would feel satisfied if the two cases are amalgamated and tried as such. According to him, such a prayer on his behalf can well be entertained because in his application while making the prayer for quashing the proceeding he has also alternatively prayed for passing of such order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper. According to him, such a prayer on his behalf can well be entertained because in his application while making the prayer for quashing the proceeding he has also alternatively prayed for passing of such order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper. To my mind, there seems no legal difficulty in the petitioners' confining their request for such an amalgamation of the two cases for the sake of facility of hearing even though no specific prayer has, to this effect, been particularly raised in the application. 5. So the question that requires consideration is whether on the facts of the matter it would be appropriate and desirable for the ends of justice to accede to their such prayer of amalgamation of the two cases. I think this Court is empowered to make such an order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561 A in the absence of any express provision in the Code not to do so. After having carefully considered all the facts and heard learned counsel of the two sides I am of the view that the amalgamation of the two cases as to be heard together in the court below will be the proper course in the interest of justice. 6. From the facts stated above with reference to the complaint petitions (annexure 1 and 2) it would be manifest that the allegations made therein relate to one and the same incident, namely, alleged entry of the accused persons on the land in the night of the 25th and 26th March, 1970 and dismantling of its 3-4 ridges, ignoring the protest raised by the constable and the chaukidar on duty, on which order under section 144 restraining both sides to go upon it was existing from before. In the Magistrate's report (annexure 1) only these 10 petitioners, who were first party in the 144 proceeding, were named. In that report the Magistrate, however, in paragraph 4 also alleged that they were also joined in that action with several others. In the complaint petition (annexure 2) the complainant named 28 persons as accused who have done so and the first ten named above were the first party in the proceeding. According to Mr. Prasad, not only that the two cases are between the same parties, the evidence to be adduced in the cases will also be the same. In the complaint petition (annexure 2) the complainant named 28 persons as accused who have done so and the first ten named above were the first party in the proceeding. According to Mr. Prasad, not only that the two cases are between the same parties, the evidence to be adduced in the cases will also be the same. In such circumstance, if the two cases are allowed to be tried separately this will necessarily mean harassment to the parties, in that they will have to examine the same set of witnesses in the two cases on different occasions and that will also lead to multiplicity of litigation, which can well be avoided if the two are amalgamated and tried together. I do not think any illegality is likely to arise in case of such an amalgamation which, as I have already observed, this Court can order if it is considered necessary to avoid the abuse of the process of the court and for the ends of justice. 7. For the above reasons, the prayer of the petitioners for amalgamation of the two cases to be tried together is allowed and the Magistrate is directed to amalgamate them and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The application is, accordingly, allowed.