1 (crim appln 1834 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1831 OF 2010 Mukesh Pahlajrai Jashnani ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Amar N. Talreja and Mr.Anand A. Talreja for Petitioner Mr.J.P.Kharge -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11.6.2010. By the said order, the learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the Petitioner for clubbing his complaint and the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 together by transferring both these cases to the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan 2 (crim appln 1834 of 2010) Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that he had filed a complaint under section 406 of I.P.C. alleging that the Respondent No.2 had misused the blank cheques which were given by the Petitioner. He submitted that thereafter, the Respondent No.2 filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He invited my attention to the complaint filed by him and the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2. It is submitted that the cause of action in both the cases was same and the subject matter of both the proceedings also the cheques which were allegedly given by the Petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that according to the Petitioner, the said cheques had been misused and according to the Respondent No.2, the said cheques were dishonoured though there was existing liability of debt. He, therefore, submitted that the case which was filed by the Petitioner under section 406 of the I.P.C. should be decided first and, thereafter, the case of the Respondent No.2 may be decided or both the cases may be clubbed together. 3 (crim appln 1834 of 2010) 4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that though the complaint filed by the Petitioner in the year 2005, initially, an order was passed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing the police to investigate the case. The police, however, filed a negative report. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 further submitted that on the other hand, the Respondent No.2 filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 2005 and the process was issued. He, therefore, submitted that in fact, the criminal case filed by him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is almost at the fag end of the trial and cross examination of the complainant is almost over. He also submitted that the case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was a similar case whereas the case filed by the Petitioner was a warrant triable case. He submitted that, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. 5. In my view, the submission made by the Respondent No.2 will have to be accepted. The complaint filed by the respondent no.2 practically is at the fag end and, thereafter, now the Petitioner wants both the matters to be clubbed possibly to protract the case filed by the Respondent No.2. It cannot be said that the 4 (crim appln 1834 of 2010) subject matter of both the cases is the same. Secondly, though the complaint filed by the Petitioner in the year 2005, the process was issued in the year 2009. In any case, the Petitioner can always raise the same defence in the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 and independently prosecute the Respondent No.2 in his own complaint. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Petition, therefore, is dismissed. Interim stay is vacated. The hearing of the trial is expedited. (V.M. KANADE J.)