ORDER : Since these two petitions are in respect of same incident and as there is case and counter case filed by both the sides, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order. 2. Crl.P.4734/2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused (Mr.Amod Malviya), the crime in the said case is Crime No.442/2016 and Crl.P.8656/2017 is filed by the petitioner (Sri Sharad Ganesh Pai), the crime in the said case is Crime No.287/2016, both the petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the respective petitioners, challenged in the respective the petitions. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in respect of both the petitions and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 State. 4. I have perused the grounds urged in both the petitions, FIRs, complaints pertaining to both the cases i.e., crime Nos.442 and 287/2016, wherein the date of incident is mentioned in both the cases as 04.05.2016 and the time of incident is 20.30 hours, so both the FIRs show that place and time of incident is one and the same. 5. Admittedly, according to both sides the incident has taken place and two complaints were filed in respect of same incident. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.4734/2017 is that merely because the complaint is filed after the lapse of two months, the Court cannot quash the proceedings only on the ground of delay, when the other material suggests regarding happening of the incident. It is for the complainant to explain why there is such long delay and it is for the trial Court to accept such contention or not. 6. Looking into both the FIRs produced in these petitions, they prima facie show that in respect of the same incident there are two criminal cases registered on the basis of two complaints, therefore, the materials show that these are case and counter cases. When that is so, the petitioners in the respective petitions cannot deny the presence at the said place. The question is who is the aggressing party and responsible for the said incident, which has to be ascertained by the concerned trial Court after recording the evidence. Therefore, these are not the cases for invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings. 7. The question is who is the aggressing party and responsible for the said incident, which has to be ascertained by the concerned trial Court after recording the evidence. Therefore, these are not the cases for invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings. 7. Looking into the materials in both the cases, I am of the opinion that these are not cases for invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when there is prima facie material produced in both the cases, hence, both the petitions are hereby rejected. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that matters are pending since long, the concerned trial Court is hereby directed to take up these two matters on priority basis and to dispose of them as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Intimate the concerned trial Court accordingly.