1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2900/2009. Santosh s/o Mukundlal Agrawal - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra & Ors - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr. AS Bajaj, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.SG Nandedkar,APP for State. Mr. RR Chandak, Advocate for Respondent No.2; Mr. SS Rathi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5TH October,2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2) Mr.Rathi learned Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 tenders an affidavit-in- reply, which is taken on record, a copy of which is served to Mr.Bajaj. 3) Applicant – Santosh had a partnership 2 with Shankarlal Harsukh Kabra at Akola. It is alleged by the applicant, during the course of his business activities with said Shankarlal Kabra, he was required to part with blank signed cheques either from his personal account or from the partnership firm, as such cheques were urgently required during the course of business transactions, being so urged by the partner Shankalal Kabra. 4) The Counsel further submits that these signed blank cheques have been misused by relations of said Shankarlal Kabra, who are stationed at Jalna and Jintur by resorting the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the said cheques were presented and they were dishonoured. 5) The appliant – Santosh had initiated proceedings, vide Crime No.460/2007, before the Police at Akola. There is a charge sheet against the partner – Shankarlal Kabra and also against the present Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 (who are complainants in 138 proceedings). 6) The Counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in Case No.S.T.C.2328/2007 at JMFC, Jalna; S.T.C. No. 3 482/2007 and S.T.C.No. 483/2007, pending before the learned JMFC Court at Jinntur, District Parbhani, be tagged with S.T.C.No.199/2009, which is pending before the JMFC, at Akola (arising out of F.I.R.Crime No. 460/2007). 7) The Counsel for the applicant Santosh in order to stress his point, took recourse to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Nathilal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 145. The Counsel submits that the factual details of the present cases warrant that they should be tried by one Judge, may be one after another, but they should be taken up and adjudicated with Criminal Case No.199/2009 pending at JMFC, Akola. 8) In the matter of Nathilal’s case (cited supra), there were cross-cases, wherein the Apex Court has highlighted the procedure to be followed in the fats of the said case. In the present case, the situation emerged is that though there was a partnership between the present applicant and Shankarlal Kabra, and present applicant alleged that the cheques were misused by his close relations, which is apparent even otherwise, however, I find that the cause for both the proceedings are not independent, they are on different pedestal. It may be that 4 the outcome of S.T.C.No.199/2009 may have its impact on the aforesaid three proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but for that purpose, it is not desirable to club all the three cases together and to be dispatched to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Akola, for taking up the same with S.T.C.No. 199/2009. 9) The defences, which are open to the applicant herein in the proceedings under Section 138 of the said Act, can very well be coined by him at the proper place before the learned Judge, which will be naturally decided on its own merits. 10) During the course of submissions, it is pointed that identical application is moved by the applicant herein – Santosh before the learned Judge at Jintur court to decide the application for transfer. If this is so, it was expected by the learned Judge from the applicant to have got such application decided and then to have approached this Court. However, it is not so done. 11) The Counsel for the applicant also informs that in S.T.C.No.2328/2007, (at the court of JMFC, Jintur) though the learned Judge was 5 informed that the accused/applicant has filed an application before the High Court being Criminal Application No.2900/2009 for clubbing or transferring, however, the learned Judge has refused to entertain the application to stay the proceedings, observing that there is no stay from the High Court in Criminal Application No. 299/2009. 12) Though it is a fact there is no stay, same cannot be treated to be a grievance against conduct of trial in STC No.2328/2007 as the proceedings are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judge seized with the matter has to dispose of the same expeditiously within a period of six months, as is carved out under the Scheme of the very Act itself. 13) To revert back to the facts, I find that though there are interse relations, pointed by the Counsel for the applicant -Santosh, of Shankarlal Kabra with the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein, however, the facts and situation of the three proceedings/prosecutions and the one initiated by the present applicant – Santosh, though have the noose of the same partnership transaction, but since it is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by three 6 different persons, I do not see that the present applicant – Santosh is justified in seeking clubbing of or transfer of the three cases to the court of JMFC at Akola. Section 219 and 220 Cr.P.C. will not be attracted in the fact situation. 14) In this scenario the Criminal Application rejected, Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2900.09