JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. — In Criminal Misc. Case No.727 of 2007 prayer has been made to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack corresponding to Mangalabag P.S. Case No.55 of 1998 in which the petitioner figures as the sole accused. In Criminal Misc. Case No.1539 of 2007 prayer has been made to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack corresponding to Mangalabag P.S. Case No.09 of 2001 in which charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and two other co-accused persons. As both the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the same petitioner and allegations made in both the cases are inter¬related, both the applications are disposed of by this common order. 2. During the period of occurrence in both the cases the petitioner was working as the Senior Accountant in the office of Utkal Postal and RMS Co-operative Society Limited, Cuttack. In G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 charge sheet was submitted and charge has been framed against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 408 I.P.C. In G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and two co-accused persons who were working as Secretary and Treasurer of the said Society during the period of occurrence for alleged commission of offences under Sections 468, 409 and 477(A)read with 34 of the I.P.C. 3. Having scrutinized the materials on record upon reference to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner there appears no compelling ground to quash any of the proceedings as against the petitioner. 4. However, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that charge has been framed by the learned S.D.J.M. in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 without applica¬tion of mind does not appear to be unfounded. The informant in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 happens to be one of the accused persons in G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 who was working as the Treasurer of the above said Society. The informant in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 happens to be one of the accused persons in G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 who was working as the Treasurer of the above said Society. Brief facts of the case in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 as described in the charge sheet reads : “xx on 24.3.98 at 0.30 A.M.complainant Pramod Kumar Kar, Treasurer of the Utkal Postal and R.M.S. Co-operative Society Ltd. Cuttack, reported in writing to the effect that he is the Treasurer of the Utkal Postal and R.M.S. Co-operative Society Ltd., Cuttack, Nua-patna Cuttack, Kulamani Kandi is the Secretary of the Society. The Pass Book of the Society runs as joint Pass Book. The Treasurer and the Secretary can draw money from the Pass Book. As usual on 10.3.98 the Cheque bearing No.UCB 991459 was signed by himself for drawing of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- through Ganjendra Nath Ojha, Sr. Accountant of the Society from Urban Co-operative Bank, Nua-Patna, CTC, for the payment to the sanctioned employees. After drawing the cash of Rupees Two lakhs the accused Ganjendra Nath Ojha fled away with the cash without maintaining the day cash Book. When the Complt. Secretary, Presi¬dent and other employees knew this they searched for the accused. They contacted the elder brother of the accused, who assured them to settle up amicably. When he made delay the Complt. Reported the fact at P.S. Mangalabag. On this P.S. Case No.55 of 1998 U/s 408 I.P.C. was registered S.I. N. Samanta Roy took up the investigation of the case and subsequently I took charges of the case. During course of investigation it came to light that the Treasurer, Secretary and President are the Govt. Servant of Postal Dept. In addition they are working as Treasurer, President and Secretary in the Utkal Postal/R.M.S. Co-operative Society Ltd., Nua-patna, CTC. The Sr. Accountant Gajendra Nath Ojha is the Competent authority who was maintaining the Day Book and Cash Book, Cheque Book etc. As usual the cash was being drawn from Urban Co-operative Bank, Nua-Patna, CTC being signed by the Treasurer and Secretary. On 10.3.1998 the Complt. Signed the cheque bearing No.UCB 991459 for drawal of Rupees Two Lakhs from Urban Co-operative Bank, Nua-Patna, through Gajendra Nath Ojha, Sr. Acct. As usual the cash was being drawn from Urban Co-operative Bank, Nua-Patna, CTC being signed by the Treasurer and Secretary. On 10.3.1998 the Complt. Signed the cheque bearing No.UCB 991459 for drawal of Rupees Two Lakhs from Urban Co-operative Bank, Nua-Patna, through Gajendra Nath Ojha, Sr. Acct. on 10.3.98 the cash of Rupees 2,00,000/- was drawn from Urban Co-operative Bank, by Gajendra Nath Ojha and fled away with the cash without maintaining the same in cash Book. Henceforth, he did not turned up to office of the Utkal Postal R.M.S. Co-operative Society Ltd., Cuttack.He avoided the police arrest and surren¬dered in the Court of S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack on 7.5.98 in the case. The official records have been verified and the complt. is directed to produce the records at the time of Trial. The copy (Xerox) of daily Day Book and Cash Book are enclosed alongwith C.S. for kind perusal. As there is prima facie evidence is well established against the accused Gajendra Nath Ojha, Sr.-Accountant of the Utkal Postal R.M.S. Co-operative Society Ltd. Nua-Patna, CTC to face his trial in the Court of law u/S 408 I.P.C.. Hence C.S. No.92 dt. 10.6.98, U/S 408 I.P.C. submitted.” 5. Thus the petitioner was charge sheeted in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 on the allegations to have misappropriated Rs.2,00,000/- which he withdrew from the Bank against the Cheque bearing No.UCB 991459 dated 10.3.1998. However, charge framed against the petitioner on 12.1.2004 reads : “On 10.3.98 at Utkal Postal & RMS Co-Operative Society Ltd., Cuttack being a Sr. Accountant and in such capacity entrusted with Joint Account in the name of Secretary and Treasurer and misappropriated the entire amount of Cheque Book bearing No.991451 to 991500 along with current Pass Book bearing No.480 for your own use and thereby committed breach of trust with respect of that property and thereby committed an offence punish¬able under Section 408 of the I.P.C.” 6. In the charge sheet submitted in G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 the petitioner and co-accused persons have been alleged to have “misappropriated the cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,07,381/- temporarily by altering the entries of register and account Book” between the period from 19.6.1996 to 19.6.1998. In the charge sheet submitted in G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 the petitioner and co-accused persons have been alleged to have “misappropriated the cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,07,381/- temporarily by altering the entries of register and account Book” between the period from 19.6.1996 to 19.6.1998. Moreover, refer¬ring to seizure lists dated 15.1.2001 and 12.2.2001 in G.R. Case No.63 of 2001, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case the certified copy of the Cheque bearing No.991459 dated 10.3.1998 for Rs.2,00,000/- as well as Day Book-cum-Cash Book and statement of account relating to 10.3.1998 were seized. On the basis of such submission, it is contended that allegations made against the petitioner and co-accused persons in G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 include also the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.2,00,000/- under the same cheque which is the subject matter of accusation in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998. 7. It is evident from the contents of charge sheet and the charge extracted above that the learned S.D.J.M. has framed charge against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 without taking into account the nature of allegations made in the case and without scrutiny of the materials on record. As stated earli¬er the Treasurer of the above said Society is the informant in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998, he has also been charge sheeted in G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 on the accusation of having committed the offences of forgery and misappropriation in association along with the petitioner and another. In view of such facts and cir¬cumstances, there is likelihood of overlapping of charges unless nature of allegations in both the cases are taken note of while framing charge against the petitioner who is accused of misappro¬priation in both the cases. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, and ensure proper prosecution and fair trial, it is desirable that the trials in both the criminal proceedings are taken up analogously so that nature of allegations made in both the cases receives appropriate appreciation. 8. In view of the above discussion, charge framed against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 is quashed. It is directed that G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 and G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 be taken up for trial analogously. In G.R. Case No.436 of 1998, charge is directed to be framed afresh. 8. In view of the above discussion, charge framed against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 is quashed. It is directed that G.R. Case No.436 of 1998 and G.R. Case No.63 of 2001 be taken up for trial analogously. In G.R. Case No.436 of 1998, charge is directed to be framed afresh. The learned trial Court shall frame charges in both the cases upon consideration of contentions raised by the petitioner. It is further directed that in view of the nature of allegations made in both the cases the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack shall forthwith trans¬fer both the cases to his Court for trial in accordance with law and ensure disposal within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions both the applications are disposed of. Application disposed of.