ORDER : (Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.) Petitioner seeks joint trial of three cases in these two petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). Though the prayer is only for joint trial, a question arises whether the trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be directed to be conducted before the Special Court constituted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Since one of the three cases claimed to be tried jointly is common to both these petitions, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.M.C No.4528 of 2024 seeks joint trial of S.C. No.1732/2023 pending before the Special Court for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nedumangad (hereafter referred to as ‘SC/ST case’), and S.C. No.1435/2023 before the Fast Track Special Court, Kattakada, Thiruvananthapuram, (hereafter referred to as ‘POCSO case’). Crl.M.C No.4535 of 2024 seeks a joint trial of the case pending as C.P. No.56/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada, Thiruvananthapuram (hereafter referred to as ‘IPC Case’) along with POCSO case. Petitioner contends that the aforesaid three cases fall within the category of cross-cases and are hence required to be jointly tried or at least consecutively tried by the same court. 3. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.32/2023 of Neyyardam Police Station - the IPC case, which is now pending, awaiting committal to the Sessions Court. Prosecution alleges that in the said crime on 15.01.2023, at around 9.30 pm, the accused had, due to a property dispute, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron hammer, causing a fracture of his left eye, thereby committing the offences under Sections 143 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said case is now under further investigation. 4. Petitioner is the accused in the SC/ST case, which arises out of Crime No.34/2023 of Neyyardam Police Station. The said crime is initiated pursuant to a complaint filed by the wife of the first accused in the IPC case. The said case is now under further investigation. 4. Petitioner is the accused in the SC/ST case, which arises out of Crime No.34/2023 of Neyyardam Police Station. The said crime is initiated pursuant to a complaint filed by the wife of the first accused in the IPC case. The crime was registered on 18.01.2023 alleging that petitioner, as accused, had, on 15-01-2023 at 10 PM, trespassed into the defacto complainant’s house and after assaulting her on the head, caught hold of her hair and breast and even tore her night dress and thereby committed the offences under Sections 294(b), 451, 506, 323, 354B and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), apart from sections 3(1)(s) & (r) and 3(V)(a), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’). 5. Petitioner is also the accused in the POCSO case. The said crime is initiated at the behest of the wife of the fifth accused in the IPC case alleging that the accused had on 15.01.2023 at 10.30 PM, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, and knowing that she is a Scheduled Caste, called her by the caste name and thereafter wore his mundu in a manner revealing his undergarments, and also caught hold of the defacto complainant’s daughter aged 12 years on her hands, and thereby outraged her modesty and sexually assaulted the minor, thus committing the offences under Sections 451, 354, 509 and 294(b) of IPC apart from Section 7 r/w Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'), apart from sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i and section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC/ST Act. 6. Petitioner, who is the defacto complainant in the IPC case and the accused in the SC/ST and POCSO cases allege that the cases registered against him are all false and are only counterblast to the IPC case, registered on his behalf. According to the petitioner, since the cases have all allegedly occurred within half an hour, in order to properly appreciate the defences raised in all three cases, it is essential to have them jointly tried or at least tried consecutively, one after the other. 7. Sri. According to the petitioner, since the cases have all allegedly occurred within half an hour, in order to properly appreciate the defences raised in all three cases, it is essential to have them jointly tried or at least tried consecutively, one after the other. 7. Sri. Arun Chand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that unless the cases are permitted to be jointly tried, the petitioner would be put to serious prejudice, especially considering that the FIR in the POCSO case was filed 26 days after registration of the IPC case. 8. Sri. P.Narayanan, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the offence in the IPC case is now subject to further investigation and has not even been committed to the Sessions Court, and therefore the said case cannot be tried jointly with other cases. However, he fairly conceded that the IPC case and the SC/ST case ought to be consecutively tried as both are cross-cases. However, it was submitted that the POCSO case cannot be directed to be jointly or consecutively tried with other cases in view of the legal provisions of the Act. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that since the POCSO court is a Special Court created for the purpose of dealing with sexual offences against minors, transferring other SC/ST offences to be tried before the POCSO court is not legally permissible, as both are to be separately tried by the Special Courts created for the purpose. 9. I have considered the rival contentions. 10. Different versions of an incident may be the basis of different crimes. These are generally regarded as ‘cross-cases’ or ‘case and counter case’. The Cr.P.C and even the BNSS are silent on how to deal with cross-cases. However, in the decision in Nathi Lal and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (1990 Suppl. SCC 145/1990 SCC (Cri) 638), the Supreme Court laid down the procedure to be adopted when cross-cases arise. It was observed that the fair procedure to be adopted in such instances is to direct the same learned Judge to try both cases one after the other. SCC 145/1990 SCC (Cri) 638), the Supreme Court laid down the procedure to be adopted when cross-cases arise. It was observed that the fair procedure to be adopted in such instances is to direct the same learned Judge to try both cases one after the other. It was further observed that after recording evidence in one case, the Judge must hear the arguments, reserve the judgment and thereafter proceed to hear the counter-case and after recording all the evidence, he must hear the arguments and reserve the judgment in that case also. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by separate judgments. It was also observed that in deciding each of the cases, the Judge should rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case, without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the counter-case. Nonetheless, it was observed that judgments in the cross cases must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other. The aforesaid proposition was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sudir and Others v. State of M.P [ (2001) 2 SCC 688 ]. 11. Apart from the above, in the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mishrilal and Others [ (2003) 9 SCC 426 ], the Supreme Court made observations as to the procedure to be adopted in respect of cross-cases and held that such cases should be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of the offence involved. The rationale behind this principle is to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident. Thus, it is evident that, irrespective of the nature of the offence, cross-cases must be tried simultaneously. 12. In Faizal v. State of Kerala ( 2024 (3) KHC 322 ) it was observed, after referring to the precedents on the issue, that the reason for adopting such a procedure for cross-cases is that; (a) it prevents the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court, (b) it deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts and (c) in reality, the case and the counter - case are different or conflicting versions of one incident for all intents and purposes. 13. In Miss. 13. In Miss. Pxxx vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another ( AIR 2022 SC 2885 ) the Supreme Court had observed that the criteria for determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction in a given case are the proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design. It was further observed that whether a series of acts are so connected to form the same transaction is a pure question of fact to be decided on the basis of the aforementioned criteria. In the decision in Tony K.M. v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC Online 9341] a learned Single Judge of this Court had transferred a case alleging offences under the IPC to be tried along with a case arising under the POCSO Act. 14. While considering whether joint trial of the three cases should be ordered or at least the principle of cross cases ought to be applied to have them tried simultaneously, the above decisions are required to be borne in mind. 15. In the instant case, offences arise under the IPC, the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act. The offences alleged under the IPC are triable exclusively by the Sessions Court and committal proceedings are pending. The offences under the SC/ST Act are triable by a Special Court constituted under the said Act while the offences under the POCSO Act are also to be tried by a Special Court created under the POCSO Act. Under section 31 of the POCSO Act, the provisions of Cr.P.C are made applicable and the Special Court is deemed to be a Court of Sessions. In Kerala, the Courts of Sessions have been notified as Special Courts under the POCSO Act and under section 28, the said court is entitled to try any other offence under any other statute if charged at the same trial. Under section 14 of the SC/ST Act, the Court of Sessions can be designated as a Special Court to try the offences under the said Act. The Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act is also a Court of Sessions. It is thus evident that, once the case under the IPC registered at the behest of the petitioner is committed to the Court of Sessions, all three cases are to be tried by Sessions Court. 16. The Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act is also a Court of Sessions. It is thus evident that, once the case under the IPC registered at the behest of the petitioner is committed to the Court of Sessions, all three cases are to be tried by Sessions Court. 16. The incident in the IPC case is alleged to have taken place on 15- 01-2023 at 9.30 PM in front of the house of the accused therein while the incident in the SC/ST case is alleged to have occurred on the same day at 10 PM in front of the house of the defacto complainant therein (who is the wife of one of the accused in the IPC case) and the incident in the POCSO case is alleged to have occurred again on the same day at 10.30 PM in the house of the defacto complainant (again the wife of another accused in the IPC case). Having regard to the proximity in time between the three offences and also the proximity of the places where the three incidents are alleged to have taken place and the persons involved in the three crimes, this Court is of the view that the three cases in effect arise out of the same transaction. The continuity of action and the place where the incidents are alleged to have taken place, all indicate that the three cases are cross-cases. Since the principle relating to cross-cases require all such cross-cases to be tried by the same learned Judge and as the POCSO Court is also a Sessions Court, it is only appropriate that these cases are tried simultaneously. 17. However, the difficulty arises as the offences under the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act are to be tried by Special Courts and each of such Courts are designed to cater to the requirements of trial under the special statute. There is no express interdiction under the POCSO Act that the Special Court under that statute cannot try other cases. In fact, when offences under different statutes are alleged, Section 28 of the POCSO Act, enables trial of such offences before the POCSO Court, provided the other offences are charged at the same trial. There is no express interdiction under the POCSO Act that the Special Court under that statute cannot try other cases. In fact, when offences under different statutes are alleged, Section 28 of the POCSO Act, enables trial of such offences before the POCSO Court, provided the other offences are charged at the same trial. In other words, when an offence under the POCSO Act is alleged to have been committed against a person of the SC/ST community, the case has to be tried by the Special Court under the POCSO Act. Taking a cue from the aforesaid enabling provision in Section 28 of the POCSO Act, it can be concluded that there is no interdiction in the POCSO Court, trying another sessions offence including that under the SC/ST Act, when the cases are under the category of cross-cases. The above interpretation will enable adherence to the principle that cross-cases must be tried simultaneously. Hence, this Court is of the view that when cross-cases arise and if one of the cross-cases alleges offences under the POCSO Act, the Special Court constituted under the said Act can try the cases relating to the other offences as well, even in consecutive trials irrespective of the nature of offence. 18. In this context, it is appropriate to note that the IPC case has not yet been committed, and in fact, a further investigation is ongoing. Hence, after the further investigation is completed, the IPC case will have to be committed to the Sessions Court. Thereafter it is necessary that the three cases be tried simultaneously. In view of the above propositions, this Court is of the view that the three cases S.C. No.1435/2023 before the Fast Track Special Court, Kattakkada, S.C. No.1732/2023 before the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nedumangad and C.P. No.56/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada after committal to the Sessions Court should be tried simultaneously by the Fast Track Special Court, Kattakkada (POCSO Court). Ordered accordingly. These criminal miscellaneous cases are allowed.