JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for revisionists and learned AGA for the State. There is no need to issue notice to opposite party No. 2, Smt. Namita, the complainant. 2. This revision under Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 20.11.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzzafarnagar in Crl. Complaint Case No. 2/9 of 2012 (Smt. Namita v. Pawan Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Meerapur, District whereby the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. praying for discharge has been rejected. 3. The grievance of the revisionists is that in respect of the same incident and on the basis of same cause of action, the complaint case has been filed and First Information Report was also lodged against the revisionists wherein, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by police. The contention is that two prosecutions on the same grounds cannot proceed simultaneously and the Magistrate ought to have discharge the revisionists in the complaint case. 4. Learned AGA supported the impugned orders. There is no bar in the Court of criminal procedure for trial of an accused in a police case as well as in a complaint case on the basis of same facts. 5. This fact has been taken care of by Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. which provides as under : “If a report is made by the Investigating Officer police Officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person which an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and case arising out of police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.” From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that on the basis of same facts, a complaint as well as the police case can both be tried together as State case and there is no bar against criminal case being prosecuted by complainant. It would be appropriate that the revisionists shall move an application before the Magistrate concerned making an appropriate prayer in terms of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. 6. It would be appropriate that the revisionists shall move an application before the Magistrate concerned making an appropriate prayer in terms of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. 6. As far as the question of discharge is concerned, there is sufficient material in the statement as recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. to warrant trial of the revisionists for the offences for which they have been summoned. No case for discharge is made out. The application for discharge has been rightly rejected. I find no good ground to interfere in the matter. The revision is dismissed with liberty to the revisionists to move an application under Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned. ——————