ORDER : Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 3.2.2020, passed by the learned ACJM, Nurpur, District Nurpur, District Kangra, HP, whereby petitioners herein came to be summoned to the court on account of their having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 447, 452, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, petitioner have approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid order. 2. Pursuant to notices issued vide order dated 24.8.2021, respondent-State has already file reply, whereas no reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, who is otherwise being represented by Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that while petitioner No.1 Sh. Baldev Singh, alongwith daughter namely Reeta Devi, was going back to his home on 2.3.2017, one vehicle i.e. Canter (truck), being driven by some unknown person hit his vehicle. While petitioner was having conversation with the truck driver, respondent No.2 Rashpal Singh alongwith persons namely Deepu, Rakesh, Pradeep and his brother, came on the spot and started giving beatings to the petitioner with stick/danda. After having heard cries of petitioner No.1, Up-Pradhan of Behi Pathiar namely Sh. Ravinder Singh and another person namely Anil Kumar, came on the spot and saved the petitioner from the clutches of above named persons. Immediately, after the aforesaid incident, petitioner No.1 approached the Police Station Nurpur and on his complaint, FIR No. 84 of 2017 dated 2.3.2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC, came to be registered against respondent No.2 and other persons namely Deepu, Rakesh and Pradeep and his brother. 4. After lodging of the aforesaid FIR by petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 also lodged complaint at PS Nurpur, stating therein that he was beaten by one Sh. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Baldev Singh (petitioner No.1) and as such, FIR No. 85 of 2017, dated 2.3.2017, came to be registered against petitioner No.1 under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 34 of IPC. 5. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Baldev Singh (petitioner No.1) and as such, FIR No. 85 of 2017, dated 2.3.2017, came to be registered against petitioner No.1 under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 34 of IPC. 5. Though police after having completed investigation in both the FIRs, as detailed herein above, filed final report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, in the competent court of law, but yet respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.PC, in the court of learned ACJM Kangra, with respect to the same incident, qua which, FIR, as detailed herein above, stood already registered (Annexure P-3). 6. Learned court vide order dated 3.2.2020, having perused complaint and preliminary evidence led on record by the complainant, summoned the petitioners herein to the court for their having allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 427, 447, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of aforesaid order. 7. Precise grouse of the petitioners, as has been raised in the instant petition, is that once FIR qua the incident on the basis of which, subsequently, private complaint came to be lodged at the behest of the respondent No.2, stood lodged and police after having completed investigation had already filed challan in the competent court of law, there was no occasion, if any, for the learned ACJM Nurpur to issue summons to the petitioners. Reply filed by respondent No.1 clearly reveals that police after having taken cognizance of the complaints made by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 lodged FIR Nos. 84 and 85 of 2017 and thereafter, after completion of investigation presented the challan in the competent court of law in both the cases. However, it appears that respondent No.2 despite his having lodged FIR, which was otherwise taken to its logical end by the police, lodged private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.PC in the competent court of law, qua the same incident, which otherwise stood reported to the police by way of FIR No. 85 of 2017. Learned trial Court vide order dated 3.2.2020, summoned the petitioners in that complaint case. 8. Learned trial Court vide order dated 3.2.2020, summoned the petitioners in that complaint case. 8. Careful perusal of private complaint filed by respondent No.2 reveals that factum with regard to lodging of FIR No. 85 of 2017 dated 2.3.2017, at the behest of respondent No.2 was very much in the knowledge of learned ACJM Nurpur, District Kangra, who before passing order dated 3.2.2020, while summoning the petitioners to the court, failed to call for report from the police with regard investigation, if any, carried out by it in the FIR bearing 85 of 2017 lodged at the behest of the respondent and issued summons to the petitioners. 9. Though careful perusal of Section 210 (1) of Cr.PC, clearly reveals that police case lodged pursuant to filing of the FIR and case registered on the basis of private complaint cannot go together, if it comes to the notice of the magistrate that FIR qua the same incident, stands filed and investigation is on, he would order stay of the proceedings. However, Section 210 (2) Cr.PC reveals that if a report is made by the investigating officer under section 173 and on such report, cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person, who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. 10. In the case at hand, as has been taken note herein above, FIR qua the same incident stood already lodged at the behest of the respondent, but yet he chose to file private complaint before the magistrate, who also issued process against the accused. 11. Since in the case at hand, challan stands filed in the competent court of law on the basis of investigation carried out by the police in the FIR lodged by the respondents, this court having taken note of the provisions contained under Section 210 (2) of Cr.PC, deems it fit to direct the court below to try the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report together as if both the cases were instituted on the police report. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Interim order dated 24.8.2021, is hereby vacated and parties are directed to remain present before the learned Court below on 20.12.2021, enabling it to proceed with the matter strictly in terms of provisions contained under Section 210 (2) of the Cr.PC. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications if any.