[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1055 OF 2008 Jasmin Bhogilal Shah ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.A.P.Mundargi, counsel for petitioner Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for the State Mr.H.H.Ponda Advocate for Respondent No.2 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-original accused and the learned counsel for the respondent-original complainant. 2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in two police cases and seven cases under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act. The two police cases pertain to CR No. 434 of 2003 under Section 506(II) of IPC of Juhu Police Station and C.R.No. 322 of 2003 of D.N.Nagar Police Station. The said case is under Sections 406, 420 and 506(II) of IPC. The said two cases are numbered as CC [-2-] Nos.134/PW/2006 and 296/PW/2006. The seven cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are bearing Nos. 2/SS/2006 to 8/SS/2006. As per the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, all these cases have been assigned to the same Court i.e. Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. On 28.11.2007, the petitioner preferred an application before the learned Magistrate praying therein that they be allowed to conduct the examination in chief of the complainant in the police cases first and thereafter, the complainant to conduct a combined cross-examination of the witnesses in all the cases. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 30.1.2008. Revision application against that order was preferred which came to be rejected, hence, the present petition is filed. 3. It may be stated here that the petitioner had also preferred Transfer Application for transfer of all the cases from the Court of the learned Magistrate where they were pending. However, the transfer application was only in respect of the particular Magistrate before whom the cases were [-3-] pending at that time and as the said Magistrate has since been transferred, it is now agreed by the learned counsels for the parties that the said transfer application has now become infructous. 4. During the course of hearing of this matter, Mr.Mundargi submitted that he is not pressing the prayer for application for transfer and he is restricting the relief to the prayer that case bearing No.296/PW/2006 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC be tried first and thereafter the other cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter the case under Section 506 of IPC to go on. Mr.Ponda, the learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection to the said prayer being granted. Looking to this fact, the learned Magistrate to first complete the trial in Case No.296/PW/2006 which is under Section 420 of IPC expeditiously and as far as possible by 30.11.2008. Thereafter, trial relating to cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act be disposed of as far as possible by 31.3.2009. Thereafter the trial in case under Section 506 of IPC be conducted and disposed of as far as possible by 31.5.2009. The [-4-] counsels for both sides have no objection to the trial in aforesaid cases being tried in the aforesaid sequence. 5. It may be stated here that the petitioner has preferred application for discharge in the case under Section 420 of IPC, which is pending before the Sessions Court and next date in the said matter is 19.9.2008. The said Application is Revision Application No.877 of 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will proceed with the discharge application on 19th and not seek adjournment in the said matter. The learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the said discharge application as expeditiously as possible. He further states that he will not seek any adjournment in the aforesaid case i.e. CC No. 296/PW/2006. Liberty is granted to the parties to apply in case of any difficulty. 6. Petition is disposed of with the above directions. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]