S.S.Grewal, J.

1. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that out of the one and the same incident State case Re : State v. Surjit Singh and others and one private complaint Re : Beant Singh v. Piare Lal and others are pending before the learned trial Magistrate. In the complaint case, some prosecution evidence is being recorded whereas in the private complaint, the accused was discharged after recording evidence, vide the order dated 2-6-1986. The said order had been set aside on revision, by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala vide the impugned order dated 11-10-1986. No illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. During the course of arguments, advanced on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner, it is contended that the learned trial Magistrate should have stayed his hands as the trial of the case was pending. Proviso to Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is relevant in this regard. The perusal of this section reveals that the said proviso is not applicable to the present care. In this the accused in the main case have filed a private complaint concerning the some occurrence. The complainant p