1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5224 OF 2009 M/s.Flash Cars Pvt.Ltd. & Anr ... Applicants versus Parag Shrirang Kemkar & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. Rupesh K. Bobade for the applicant. Ms.S.V.Gajare APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 30th November 2009 P.C. 1. By this application filed under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants pray that criminal case no.1812 of 2008 pending in the Court of JMFC, Thane be transferred to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Mulund. 2. Two grounds are urged before me for transfer. It is firstly submitted that the complainant had previously filed an FIR in the Mulund Police station. However, Mulund police station did not take any action. This shows that cause of action had arisen within the 2 jurisdiction of Mulund police station for which the appropriate court would be the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mulund. 3. Secondly the applicant contends that another criminal case on similar allegations of cheating has been filed by another person and is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and therefore, the present case be transferred to that Court. It would also be convenient to the respondent no.2 (original complainant) as he has a place of residence at Mulund. 4. The complaint is filed for offences punishable u/s.420, 406, 465, 468, 471 r/w section 34 of the IPC against the applicant no.1 which is a company and applicant nos.2 to 4 who are its directors. The applicants issued advertisement in different newspapers circulated at different places advertising their car-rent, car-finance and land property finance schemes. On reading the advertisement, complainant contacted the applicants who told him to meet the applicant no.2 at his residential address at Kharegaon-Kalwa(Thane). Meetings took place with all accused at Thane and in pursuance of those meetings, complainant invested money in the scheme of the applicants by issuing cheques payable at Mulund. Later on, complainant discovered that the scheme was fraudulent and he was duped of his money. Plain allegation in the complaint show that part of the offence was committed at Thane and part of the offence was committed at Mulund. In the circumstances, both the Courts would have a jurisdiction to try the accused. The complainant had a right to file FIR in the police station at Mulund. As the cheques were paid at Mulund. However since the police did not take action, the complainant was required to file a complaint. He had a 3 choice of both the courts where part of the offence had taken place. He has chosen the Court of JMFC at Thane and prima facie I do not find irregularity in the action of the complainant on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. 5. So far as the ground that another criminal case is pending in the Court of JMFC Mulund. in my opinion, that is not a sufficient ground for transfer. If the allegations in the various complaints are taken at the face value, it appears that the applicants have cheated different persons at different places. If the offence of cheating has taken place at different places and different persons are cheated each of them is free to file a complaint at a place whether the offence has taken place. Merely because the modus operandi employed by the applicants for the alleged cheating was the same or similar, that by itself is no ground for transfer of all the cases to the same court for trial. 6. As regards the allegations of convenience of the complainant, the complainant himself has chosen the Court of JMFC, Thane and therefore the case cannot be transferred on the ground that Court at Mulund is also convenient to the complainant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in P.R. Behere Vs.Ganpatrao Shrinivasrao Chavan, 1990 (Supp.1) SCC 139. In that case, there was only one offence u/s. 501 of the IPC, though the same article was distributed at different places. Since the offence involved was the same article, the High Court transferred the cases under section 407 and Supreme Court declined to interfere in the order of transfer. In the present case, offence is not the 4 same but offences are different; persons cheated are different. Only modus operandi of the offence appears to be similar. In my opinion, therefore, the case before Supreme Court is distinguishable on facts. 8. There is no merit in the application which is hereby dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)