ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the order dated 13.11.2017 in CFR.No.426 of 2013 in Cr.No.194 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula and consequently to quash the order of committal dated 26.02.2018 in PRC.No.9 of 2013 in SC.No.86 of 2018 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

2. Petitioner herein is accused No.5. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet is that the deceased Chantimireddy Manjunatha Reddy and the accused No.1 are agnatic brothers and are residents of E. Kothapalli Village. The family of the deceased owned a land to an extent of Acs.4.30 cents in E. Kothapalli Village Revenue fields, adjoining to which the field of accused No.1 is situated. As the accused No.1 occupied some of the land of the deceased, dispute arose between the two families. As the family of the deceased approached the court and have obtained orders in their favour, the accused bore grudge and as such, accused Nos.1 and 2 threatened the deceased on 03.06.2012 that they would kill him.Thereafter, when the deceased was heading home along with his family members and when the deceased reached the house of one Bala Anjanappa of the subject village, the accused Nos.1 to 4, along with the petitioner hereinattacked the deceased on the face and head with wooden rafters; as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the ground; subsequently all the accused including the petitioner herein fled away pelting stones upon the family members of the deceased. Thereafter, the brother of the deceased lodged a complaint in Pulivendula Police Station and a case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC.Basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Inspector of Police to the Superintendent of Police, YSR district with regard to alibi petition of the petitioner herein who was initially arraigned as accused No.3 in the FIR, the Superintendent of Police issued orders deleting the name of the petitioner herein who was arraigned as accused No.3, vide memo dated 18.10.2012.

4. Thereafter, the case against the accused No.1 to 4 in the charge sheet was taken up on file under Section 302 IPC and the same was numbered as PRC.No.9 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pulivendula. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2012 of the Superintendent of Police, the 2^nd respondent herein has filed a complaint vide C.F.R.No.426 of 2013 under Section 200 Cr.P.C, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula requesting to take cognizance for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioner herein. The court below, has allowed the said petition on 13.11.2017 by directing the office to club CFR.No.426 of 2013 with PRC.No.9 of 2013 as contemplated under Section 210(2) of Cr.P.C.

Challenging the order dated 13.11.2017, the present petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments has contended that the order passed by learned Magistrate clubbing the case on police report in PRC.No.9 of 2013 and the private complaint CFR No.426 of 2013 is erroneous and against the settled position of law that two cases should be tried together, but not consolidated. He further contended that the version submitted by the 2^nd respondent in the private complaint varies with that of the version in the charge sheet filed by the police against the petitioner herein. He further states that if the two cases were tried separately and examine the witnesses separately, it would be possible for the court below to arrive at the truth. As such, the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the deletion of the petitioner’s name and directing the office to club CFR No.426 of 2013 with PRC No.9 of 2013 is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd responde