JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 22.12.2001 whereby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror (Anwar) dismissed application of petitioner under Section 323, Cr.P.C. seeking commitment of Criminal Case No. 521-A/1999 to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Behror. 2. F.I.R. No. 235/1995 was chalked out on 19.8.1995 on the basis of Parcha Beyan of Harnarain (petitioner) and criminal case was registered at Police Station Behror against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (Ramavtar, Pooran, Sedu, Madho) for offence under Sections 147, 451, 323, I.P.C. In Parcha Beyan, petitioner alleged that in early morning (Kaleva-tea time), while he was sitting along with his brother Prabhu, respondents (accused) came to their house alongwith 50-60 persons duly armed with lathis and Farsa (pick-axe) and started inflicting farsa blows to Harnarain (petitioner), resulting into sustaining injuries and he was immediately taken to the hospital. After investigation, police submitted negative final report, against which protest petition was filed by petitioner and on 3.12.1999, Magistrate took cognizance - which was quashed vide order dated 26.7.2001 by this Court in a petition filed by accused and matter was remanded, whereupon trial Magistrate took cognizance afresh vide order dated 18.9.2001. 3. F.I.R. No. 234/1995 was also chalked out on Parcha Beyan of larnarain S/o Sheonath Gurjar and criminal case was registered at Police Station Behror (Alwar) on 19.8.1995 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307 LP.C. against Khushiram, Harnarain (complainant in F.I.R. No. 235/1995) Gariba, Bhambhu and Ramkuwar. In Parcha Beyan, it was alleged inter alia that at about 10 A.M. while sitting in front of his house under a Piple tree, Khushiram armed with sword, Ramkunwar with Farsi (pick-axe), Harnarain, Gariba and Bhambhu with lathis and hurling abuses besides saying to kill his uncle Khyaliram who was sitting in a chowk and then started inflicting sword blow on the shoulder and farsi blow on the head of Khyaliram and lathi blows were inflicted when he fell down. After investigation, challan was filed against accused in F.I.R. No. 234/1995 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the case, as informed, has been ripen for final hearing. 4. After investigation, challan was filed against accused in F.I.R. No. 234/1995 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the case, as informed, has been ripen for final hearing. 4. At this stage, petitioner (complainant in F.I.R. No. 235/1995) moved an application before Court of Sessions where trial in criminal case arising out of F.I.R. No. 234/1995 was pending, for transfer of their case also on the premise that F.I.R. No. 235/1995 is a cross case and as such trial pending before Magistrate should also be transferred and be committed to the Court of Sessions. The said application was dismissed by Court of Sessions vide order dated 12.2.2001 on the premises that since criminal case arising out of F.I.R. No. 235/1995 is pending trial before Magistrate, it will not be proper for the Court to commit the case - against which revision petition was filed wherein this Court vide order dated 27.2.2001 permitted the petitioner to move application before the trial Magistrate. Thereafter fresh application was filed before learned Magistrate, which was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2001. Hence this petition. 5. Counsel for petitioner submits that both the F.I.Rs. were filed for one and same incident having taken place in the morning of 19.8.1995 - reports whereof were lodged by both the parties, but police filed challan only in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of respondent party while on complainant's F.I.R., Magistrate took cognizance on 18.9.2001; as such once both the F.I.Rs. relating to one and same incident and being cross cases and when criminal case arising out of F.I.R. No. 234/1995 of the respondent party has been committed to Court of Sessions, application moved by petitioner to commit cross case out of F.I.R. No. 235/1995 should have been allowed as it will be in the interest of justice if both the cases are tried by Court of Sessions. In support of contention, counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. State, 1999(3) WLC 483 . 6. Learned Public Prosecutor and so also counsel for respondents (accused) submits that trial Magistrate has recorded finding that cases out of two F.I.Rs. In support of contention, counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. State, 1999(3) WLC 483 . 6. Learned Public Prosecutor and so also counsel for respondents (accused) submits that trial Magistrate has recorded finding that cases out of two F.I.Rs. are not cross cases because time and place of incident do not tally and criminal case upon F.I.R. 235/1995 was filed only with an oblique motive to make out a counter case whereas in fact no such occurrence has taken as referred to by petitioner at relevant point of time; as such no error has been committed by trial Magistrate while passing order impugned. That apart, counsel submits that criminal case arising out of F.I.R. lodged by respondent party after it was committed to the Court of sessions where prosecution evidence and so also of defence have already been closed and it has been ripen for final hearing; as such no prejudice is going to cause in the facts of instant case to petitioner complainant party. 7. I have considered contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. There cannot be any dispute that Section 323, Cr.P.C. confers certain powers upon trial Court to commit the case to Court of Sessions, if it appears that the case is required to be tried by Court of Sessions and there is no bar under Section 323 Cr.P.C. that the case should be tried by Magistrate, alone and under this Section, case triable by Magistrate can also be committed to the Court of Sessions if situation so warrants. 8. From a bare perusal of F.I.R. No. 235/1995 lodged by instant petitioner it appears that the incident alleged therein took place on 19.8.1995 in morning tea time (Kaleva-tea time) and is pending at the stage of framing of the charges against respondents herein, while case arising out of F.I.R. No. 234/1995 lodged by instant respondent party has completely ripen for conclusion of trial, itself before Court of Sessions after both the parties have closed their evidence - at the time of recording whereof, opportunity was also available to cross examine their respective witnesses with regard to the alleged incident. Final report was submitted by police in F.I.R. No. 235/1995 - against which protest petition was filed and cognizance was taken against instant respondents (accused) way back on 18.9.2001 and matter is still at the stage of framing of the charges, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that once both the parties have disclosed their defence and in criminal case arising out of F.I.R. No. 234/1995 lodged at the instance of respondents (accused), petitioner lust have cross examined them about alleged incident for which F.I.R. No. 235/1995 was lodged by complainant petitioner herein. In such circumstances, this Court finds substance that no prejudice in facts of instant case is going to be caused to either party. 9. Judgment in Om Prakash v. State (supra) cited by counsel for petitioner is of no assistance for the reason that it was a case where the case was yet to be tried even by Court of Sessions and application was filed at the stage when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and trial was yet to commence, inasmuch as it was not in dispute between the parties therein that both the F.I.Rs. were of self-same incident; whereas in instant case, criminal case out of F.I.R. No. 234/1995 lodged by instant respondent party has long been committed to Court of Sessions where trial has ripen at the conclusion stage since evidence of both the parties have been closed inasmuch as in criminal case pending before Magistrate arising out of F.I.R. No. 235/1995 which petitioner intends to get committed to the Court of Sessions treating as cross case, as has been brought to the notice of this Court is pending at the stage of framing of charges. That apart, trial Magistrate as even observed about a fact that incident having taken place at different place and time, is therefore, different and cannot be considered to be a cross or counter case of self same incident - on which this Court does not express any opinion since this Court is satisfied that in instant case no prejudice is going to be cause to either party and no fruitful purpose is likely to serve in accepting the application for committing the case to the Court of Sessions. 10. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that what has been observed by trial Magistrate under order impugned will not cause any prejudice to either party to the case pending before him. Criminal case out of F.I.R. No. 235/1995 being old one, Magistrate is directed to expedite the same. A copy of this order be set to the trial Magistrate forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******