ORDER : Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application for clubbing Sessions Trial No.95 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2010 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow (State versus Rajendra Singh Dua) and complaint Case No.426 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.114A of 2010 under Sections 395, 397 IPC, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow (State versus Aswini Chhawla and others). 2. Earlier before approaching the Trial Court by filing the application on 24.08.2018, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Crl. Misc. Case No.4444 of 2016 was filed by the applicants with a prayer that both the cases may be treated as cross cases and, therefore, these cases are to be clubbed together. However, the aforesaid petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.7.2016 with liberty to the petitioners to move an application before the Trial Court that both cases i.e. case against them and so called cross case were required to be decided together. 3. Despite aforesaid order passed by this Court, no application was moved for clubbing aforementioned two cases till 24.08.2018. From the perusal of order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court, it would be evident that an application was moved by the accused for summoning the prosecution witnesses to be examined as defence witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge, however, dismissed the said application on the ground that the accused conduct was only to delay the conclusion of trial. It was also noted by the learned Trial Court that till date even no application for clubbing two cases was moved by the accused despite liberty having been granted by the High Court. At the stage, when the arguments have been concluded on behalf of the prosecution and the case was fixed for argument by the defence, the application was moved for clubbing two cases on 24.08.2018. 4. The Trial Court held that the accused has not moved the application with clean hands but with only purpose to delay the conclusion of trial. At the stage, when the arguments have been concluded on behalf of the prosecution and the case was fixed for argument by the defence, the application was moved for clubbing two cases on 24.08.2018. 4. The Trial Court held that the accused has not moved the application with clean hands but with only purpose to delay the conclusion of trial. It was held that Case Crime No.114A/2010 which the accused alleged to be the cross-case, the incident was of 18.02.2010 at 8:30 P.M. whereas the incident of the present trial i.e. Sessions Trial No.95 of 2011 took place on 18.02.2010 at 9:00 P.M. and, therefore, since the timings of both the incidents was different, the cases cannot be treated as cross cases. The trial Court was of the opinion that filing an application at this stage where the prosecution had concluded its arguments and the date was fixed for argument by the defence, the only conclusion would be the defence wanted to delay the conclusion of trial. The High Court had already directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of two months in a petition moved by the complainant and that order was passed in the presence of the counsel for the accused and, therefore, the application was not a bonafide exercise. The accused did not approach the court with clean hands but they had filed the application as a tactic to delay the conclusion of the trial. In view of the aforesaid, the learned trial court dismissed the application vide impugned order. 5. The relevant facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of this petition are summarized as under:- (i) On a complaint of Ashwini Chawla, respondent No.2 an FIR was registered at Case Crime No.114 of 2010 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC against 8 accused including the petitioners at 21:35 Hours on 18.02.2010 itself. It was alleged in the complaint that when the complainant, Ashwini Chawla at around 9:00 P.M. was closing down his shop and having his mobile and cash, on instigation of Rajendra Dua, the other accused namely, Pinki Dua, Monti Dua, Balbir Singh Dua, Surjeet Singh Dua, Shalu Dua, Sonu Dua, Bhanu Dua and 30-35 other persons armed with hockey, fire arms, swords attacked him with intention to kill him and snatched his belongings including cash. He had received serious injuries on his legs. He had received serious injuries on his legs. (ii) On a complaint of Balbir Singh Dua, FIR at Case Crime No.114A of 2010 under Sections 395/397 IPC was registered at police station at 13:50 Hours on 18.02.2010. It was alleged that at around 8:30 P.M. complainant, Balbir Singh Dua was standing in Guru Nanak Market at that time Ashwini Chhawla, Mukesh Manwani, Mukul, Kapil, Vikky, Dabbu and 4-5 other boys surrounded him. Ashwini Chhawla exhorted other accused to kill the complainant as he projected himself to be the leader of the market. On this, all the accused attacked and assaulted him by kicks and fists and danda; snatched his gold chain and took away the money from his pocket. They also attacked him by knife in order to kill him which he could avoid by warding off by his hand. On raising alarm by him the shop keepers of the market came and saved him. It is important to note here that both the incidents had taken place at different time and even lodging of the FIR in both the occurrences is different from one and the other. (iii) Police after conducting the investigation in Case Crime No.114 of 2010 had filed charge-sheet against the accused. However, as police did not find any evidence in support of the allegations in the FIR at Case Crime No.114A/2010 and submitted final report No.26 of 2010. The complainant of Case Crime No.114A of 2010, Balbir Singh Dua preferred a protest petition to the final report submitted by the police. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Lucknow treated the protest petition as State case and summoned the accused named in the FIR vide order dated 15.02.2011 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.315 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.114A of 2010. (iv) Respondent No.2, Ashwini Chawla one of the accused in FIR registered at Case Crime No.114A of 2010 filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Crl. Misc. Case No.4844 of 2002 against summoning order dated 15.02.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.315 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 07.11.2002 while issuing notice, stayed the proceedings in Case No.426 of 2011 (State versus Ashwini Chawla and others) relating to Case No.114A of 2010 under Sections 395/397 IPC, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow against Ashwini Chawla. The aforesaid Crl. Misc. Case No.315 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 07.11.2002 while issuing notice, stayed the proceedings in Case No.426 of 2011 (State versus Ashwini Chawla and others) relating to Case No.114A of 2010 under Sections 395/397 IPC, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow against Ashwini Chawla. The aforesaid Crl. Misc. Case No.4844 of 2012 filed by respondent No.2 under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. got dismissed for want of prosecution vide order passed by this Court on 02.11.2016. (v) On an application filed on behalf of the petitioners through Harjit Singh Dua, lower court record of Case Crime No.114A of 2010; Case No.426 of 2011 has been sent back to the learned Magistrate, which is evident from the office report that lower Court record has already been sent back to the concerned Court. (vi) Thereafter, petitioner No.1 Rajendra Singh Dua had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Case No.4444 of 2016 before this Court contending that the Case Crime Nos.114 of 2010 and 114A of 2010 were cross cases and both ought to be decided together. However, this petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial Court by way of an application for treating aforesaid cases as cross cases. (vii) Respondent No.2, thereafter, preferred a petition before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Crl. Misc. Case No.4540 of 2018 with a prayer to direct the learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act), Lucknow to conclude hearing of Sessions Trial No.95 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2010 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow. (viii) This court vide order dated 26.07.2018 disposed of the aforesaid petition and directed the Additional District Judge (Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act), Lucknow to conclude the hearing in Sessions Trial No.95 of 2011 corresponding to Case Crime No.114 of 2010 within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Further observation was made that if the order was not complied with then the matter would be reported to the Administrative Committee for taking disciplinary action against the presiding officer. The petitioner thereafter, moved Supreme Court against the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2018 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No.4540 of 2018 filed by Ashwini Chawla (respondent No.2) being S.L.P. No.7824-7826 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018. The petitioner thereafter, moved Supreme Court against the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2018 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No.4540 of 2018 filed by Ashwini Chawla (respondent No.2) being S.L.P. No.7824-7826 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018. (ix) It is important to note here that petitioner No.1 who filed the petition being Crl. Misc. Case No.4444 of 2016 before the High Court for clubbing the cases arising out of two FIRs at Case Crime Nos.114 of 2010 and 114A of 2010 withdrew the same on 05.07.2016 with liberty to move an appropriate application before the Sessions Court. However, the application was moved only on 24.08.2018 after a delay of 2 years 1 month and 19 days. The aforesaid application dated 24.08.2018 was dismissed by learned Trial Court vide impugned order as mentioned above. 6. The Supreme Court finally disposed of the S.L.P. Nos. 7824-7826 of 2018 vide its order dated 20.09.2018 requesting this Court to consider the prayer and deal with the matter expeditiously as early as possible. The Supreme Court also set aside the observation of this Court that if the trial Court did not conclude the hearing and pronounce the judgment within 2 months, the matter would be reported to the Administrative Committee for taking disciplinary action against the presiding officer. 7. Heard Mr. Jyotindra Misra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.K. Dwivedi, Advocate appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Manoj Mishra appearing for the respondents. 8. Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of petition. He has submitted that the FIR at Case Crime No.114A/2010 was lodged by Balbir Singh and the petitioners in the present case are neither the informant nor even the witnesses of the incident and, therefore, the result of Case No.426 of 2011 under Sections 395/397 IPC, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow arising out of Case Crime No.114A of 2010 would not be of any consequence to the petitioners who are the accused in Case Crime No.114 of 2010. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid, they are neither informant nor witnesses of the incident, and therefore, they do not have locus to claim that the two FIRs registered at Case Crime Nos.114 of 2010 and 114A of 2010 are cross cases. 9. On the other hand, Sri Jyotindra Misra, Advocate assisted by Mr. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid, they are neither informant nor witnesses of the incident, and therefore, they do not have locus to claim that the two FIRs registered at Case Crime Nos.114 of 2010 and 114A of 2010 are cross cases. 9. On the other hand, Sri Jyotindra Misra, Advocate assisted by Mr. R.K. Dwivedi, Advocate submits that two FIRs have been registered with respect to same incident and, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. versus Mishrilal (dead) and others : (2003) 9 SCC 426 , both the FIRs registered at Case Crime Nos.114 of 2010 and 114A of 2010 are required to be tried together. Para 8 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herebelow:- "8. In the instant case, it is undisputed, that the investigating officer submitted the challan on the basis of the complaint lodged by the accused Mishrilal in respect of the same incident. It would have been just, fair and proper to decide both the cases together by the same court in view of the guidelines devised by this Court in Nathi Lal case [1990 Supp SCC 145 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 638] . The cross-cases should be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of the offence involved. The rational behind this is to avoid the conflicting judgments over the same incident because if cross-cases are allowed to be tried by two courts separately there is likelihood of conflicting judgments. In the instant case, the investigating officer submitted the challan against both the parties. Both the complaints cannot be said to be right. Either one of them must be false. In such a situation, legal obligation is cast upon the investigating officer to make an endeavour to find out the truth and to cull out the truth from falsehood. Unfortunately, the investigating officer has failed to discharge the obligation, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice." 10. I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 11. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the two FIRs registered at Case Crime Nos.114 of 2010 and 114A of 2010 arising out of the same incident or not. As noted above, the timing of both the incident is not same but they had taken place at different time. 11. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the two FIRs registered at Case Crime Nos.114 of 2010 and 114A of 2010 arising out of the same incident or not. As noted above, the timing of both the incident is not same but they had taken place at different time. Even FIRs got registered not at the same time but at different times. Thus, it appears that both FIRs are not relating to the same incident and the trial court has rightly held that since the registration of two FIRs at Case Crime Nos.114 of 2010 and 114A of 2010 is not for the same incident, both the cases cannot be treated as cross cases. It is evident that the petitioners herein namely Rajendra Singh Dua and Rikki @ Manjeet Singh are neither informant nor witnesses to the incident alleged to have taken place for which FIR at Case Crime No.114A of 2010 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC was registered inter alia against the respondent No.2 by Balbir Singh Dua. Therefore, there is a question of maintainability of the present petition on behalf of the petitioners who are accused in Case Crime No.114 of 2010. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioners withdrew the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Crl. Misc. Case No.4444 of 2016. However, they moved application before the Trial Court for clubbing two cases only on 24.08.2018 for delay of 2 years 1 month and 19 days from the date this Court dismissed their petition on 05.07.2016 with liberty to them to move an appropriate application before the Trial Court when the case was fixed for argument on behalf of the defence, the petitioners had moved the application. Therefore, considering the fact that two FIRs do not appear to be regarding the same incident, the petitioners were neither informant nor witnesses in the FIR at Case Crime No.114A of 2010 dated 18.02.2010 registered on the complaint of Blabir Singh Dua and they moved trial Court only when the Trial court had fixed the case for arguments by the defence on 24.08.2018 after a delay of 2 years 1 month and 19 days from the date when they withdrew the petition from the High Court with liberty to move the trial court for clubbing two cases together, it appears that the only purpose is to delay the conclusion of trial. 12. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the present petition which is hereby dismissed. 13. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the hearing of Sessions Trial No.95 of 2011 and pronounce the judgment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.