JUDGMENT 1. - In the present revision petition, petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 22.03.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh whereby he took cognizance in the complaint titled Malchand v. Mst.Saloni for an offence under Section 279, 337, 338 IPC and further ordered the consolidation of the impugned complaint dated 12.12.2005 with regular criminal case no. 2/2006 titled State v. Ramesh Kumar. 2. Briefly stated on 12.11.2005 a car which was registered in the name of Dr.Banshidhar Lalgaria caused an accident. In the accident one Gopal Goyal was injured and received simple and grievous injuries on his body. 3. Four days after the incident, FIR was lodged by Malchand Goyal father of Gopal Goyal. On basis of which regular criminal case no. 2/2006 was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh. In the FIR, nobody was named as accused. The investigating agency came to the conclusion that accident was caused by one Ramesh Kumar. 4. Meanwhile not satisfied with the result and opinion of the Investigating Agency, a private complaint was filed by Malchand Goyal naming therein the present petitioner as an accused. In the private complaint so filed, the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide the impugned order and further consolidated complaint case with the FIR case. 5. In the context of above facts, Shri Pradeep Shah counsel for the petitioner submitted that a grave error was committed by the Court below, as procedure prescribed under Section 210 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked as in the FIR case and complaint case both the accused were different. It is stated that the FIR and the complaint case propound contradictory version and thus if consolidation is allowed the accused will be made to defend contradictory version. 6. Shri Ashok Prajapat, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Shri RS Gill counsel for the complainant have submitted that it is duty of the Court to find the truth and come to conclusion as to which version is correct. 7. I have given my due consideration to the rival submissions advanced before me. Section 210 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked if in complaint case and FIR case one of the accused is common. In the present case, in the FIR case Ramesh has been named as accused, whereas in complaint case present petitioner Mst. Saloni has been named as accused. I have given my due consideration to the rival submissions advanced before me. Section 210 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked if in complaint case and FIR case one of the accused is common. In the present case, in the FIR case Ramesh has been named as accused, whereas in complaint case present petitioner Mst. Saloni has been named as accused. Therefore, the rightful course for the Court below is to try FIR case and complaint case separately but simultaneously to avoid prejudice to the accused in both the cases. Hence, the order whereby complaint case and the FIR case were consolidated is modified and it is ordered that both FIR case and complaint case shall be tried separately but simultaneously. 8. In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed of.Revision disposed of. *******