1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 913 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 914 OF 2008 M/s. Ramniranjan Kedia Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ashish Chavan for Petitioners. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri – APP for State. Mr. Nimish Desai for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. The petitioners have challenged the Order of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, refusing to transfer one warrant triable case pending before the 9th Court Bandra to the 44th Court Andheri, for being tried along with other eight summons triable cases. 2. The petitioners are accused in 8 cases instituted by the respondents under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners have filed proceedings under section 465, 467 and 471 of the 2 Indian Penal Code alleging forgery of the Hire Purchase Agreement on the basis of which the transaction between the parties including that of the cheques took place. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the cheques in question were issued by the petitioners as a result of the Hire Purchase Agreement, two matters should be tried together by the same court. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submits and points out that the trials under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending since the year 2002 and several applications have been made by the petitioners during this period for delaying the proceedings. The learned counsel interalia points out to a matter which came up before this Court in Criminal Application No. 284 of 2006 which was decided on 7th February 2006. The learned counsel also refers to several other applications on the basis of a compilation submitted by him. 4. Having considered the matter, in my view, it is an appropriate case for directing the transfer of the cases in view of the long pendency of summons triable cases before the Court at Andheri. In fact it appears from the Order of this court dated 7th February 2006 that the petitioners had earlier sought for stay of these very cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court at Andheri on the same ground that 3 is urged now for transferring and clubbing the cases together, viz. that cheques were issued in respect of Hire Purchase Agreement dated 24th April 1994. This court had rejected that request in the following words : “By no stretch of imagination this case and the 138 proceedings can be in respect of the same offence.” In this view of the matter, I do not consider it proper to exercise discretion to transfer the case as prayed for by the petitioners. Petitions are dismissed. 5. The trial court at Andheri shall decide the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as expeditiously as possible. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)