JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. Heard both the sides at length. 2. According to learned Counsel, the prosecution of this petitioner along with others in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No. 29 of 2003 requires to be quashed. In this context it is submitted that for an occurrence dated 23.2.2003 an information was lodged with the police by one Prabhanjan Prasad Singh which was registered as Kunda P.S. Case No. 28 of 2003 and investigation started. However for the same occurrei ice another information was recorded by the same police on fard beyan of one Ram Naresh Singh Assistant Inspector of Police and Anr. case was registered as Kunda P.S. Case No. 29 of 2003. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since both the cases were registered for the same occurrence alleging therein similar facts against the petitioner and others, the police should have investigated the case amalgamating these two fard beyan and filed a joint comprehensive final form. However, police has investigated the two cases separately and filed two separate charge sheets has resulting in trial of the petitioner and others in two different cases which requires to be quashed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant of Kunda P.S Case No. 23 of 2003 vehemently opposed. Accordingly to him, both the occurrence has reported by two informants were separate in nature and substance. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon AIR 2001 SC 2637 and submitted that when the two versions are coming describing the same event, separate registration of the police case as well as investigation was not permissible. 5. In the above cited case their Lordships have occasion to consider the aspect where two different versions of the same occurrence were brought before the court. On 25.11.1994 during a function organized by CPI(M) violence erupted and police had to resort to fire resulting in loss of life and property. Afterwards inquiry Commission was set up which submitted its report to the government in 1990 on the basis of this report the State Government has directed for legal actions resulting in registration of cases in which Police Officers and Government Servants were made accused. It further appears that earlier crime No. 353 of 1994 and 354 of 1994 has been lodged with concerned police station against CPI(M) activist. It further appears that earlier crime No. 353 of 1994 and 354 of 1994 has been lodged with concerned police station against CPI(M) activist. In that context their Lordship held that later on registration of case against the-police officers, as crime No. 268 of 1997 was not valid. 6. However in the present facts where during the incident of Kunda P.S. Case No. 29 of 2003, the police officer posted at the place of occurrence for security purposes was attacked by the accused persons resulting in serious injuries on him. The allegation against the petitioners and others in this case is that they attacked the police officers for which they have been charge sheeted under section 307 including other offences of rioting, trespass etc. In Kunda P.S. Case No. 28 of 2003 the informant Prabhanjan Prasad Singh has alleged that his father was killed by the accused persons and properties to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs were destroyed as well as stolen. During the investigation, the allegations was found true by the police and charge sheet submitted. The petitioner as well as others are facing trial in both the cases. As such, I find that the present petitioner has got no merit in it. 7. However, for the ends of justice both the cases need to be tried by one court. In the result, this application is dismissed.