HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18482 of 2026 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Varanasi, on an application (Paper No. 8-kha) moved by the informant, in Session Case No. 44 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 1533 of 2019, under Section 376, 323, 506, 328 of I.P.C. and Section 67-A of I.T. Act (State vs. Atul Singh), P.S. Cantt. District Varanasi, and direct the Court concerned to proceed independently in Session Case No. 44 of 2022 and Session Case No. 700 of 2022. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that different offences had taken place in the present matter and vide the impugned order dated 10.02.2026, both the offences, arising out of different case crime numbers, were directed to be consolidated. It is further submitted that no joint trial of two different offences can be conducted by the learned trial court. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the first offence was committed on 14.10.2019, and the F.I.R. was lodged by the present informant on 28.11.2019. The second F.I.R. was lodged on 28.05.2020. The second F.I.R. was lodged in the transaction of first offence. It is further submitted that as per the provision of Section Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunwar Bikram Suryabansh, Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Divyansh Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 219/223 of Cr.P.C., the accused may be charged and tried together, who are accused of different offences, but have committed offence in the same transaction. It is further submitted that the learned trial court did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 10.02.2026. 5. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 6. As per the provision of Section 219/223 of Cr.P.C., different accused, who have committed the offences in the same transaction, may be tried together. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, therefore, the present application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly, Dismissed. 7. No order as to cost. May 5, 2026 A.P. Pandey NA528 No. 18482 of 2026 2 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad