1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. CRIMINAL MISCALLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 304 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO. 111 OF 2009. AND CRIMINAL MISCALLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 305 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.112 OF 2009. Mrs. Vimal Vijay Bhaiya and Smt. Rucmini Raghunath Narvekar and others. .. Applicants. Versus Shri Ranjit Satardekar and others. .. Respondents. Shri V. R. Tamba, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri Ranjit Satardekar in person. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent no.3. CORAM: N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties. These are applications for transposition filed by the respondent no.2. The 2 respondent no.2 was an accused along with the petitioners against whom process was issued under sections 499/500 in two cases in the complaint filed by the respondent no.1/complainant. 2. As initially respondent no.2/accused no.4 was not available at the time of filing the main petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the orders of the Sessions Court passed in revision, affirming issuance of process against the petitioners and the respondent no.2, that the petitioners/accused chose to make respondent no.2/A4 as the respondent and thereafter the present applications have been filed on her behalf by which she wants to be transposed as petitioner along with the remaining accused in the said two complaints/cases. Petitioners have no objection nor they can have any as all of them sail in the same boat. 3. Shri Tamba, Learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent no. 2/A4 has submitted that although there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transposition, the application for transposition be considered under Section 482 of the said Code. 3 4. Shri Satardekar, the complainant/respondent no.1, has firstly submitted that Shri Tamba who appears for the petitioners/accused cannot appear for respondent no.2/A4 as there would be conflict of interest between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. Shri Satardekar submits that respondent no.2/A4 had not challenged the order of the Learned Magistrate before the Sessions Judge and she had continued to be a party/respondent in the revision petition arising from Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.112 of 2009. Learned Counsel further submits that there are no provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure akin to the provisions of Order 1 Rules 10 and 12 which would permit transposition. 5. Both the parties, have not relied on any authority to support their respective submissions. 6. Basically what is involved in the petitions is the challenge to the orders of the Sessions Judge passed in revision, the orders upholding the issuance of process against the petitioners and the said respondent no. 2 who were all, the accused in the said two cases filed by Shri Satardekar. 4 That could have been done by any of the accused, from amongst the petitioners as well as the said respondent no.2. In substance, whether the application is granted or not is of no consequence. Nothing prevents respondent no.2/A4 from supporting the petitions filed by the petitioners, i.e. the other accused. Whether, the respondent no.2/A4 is arrayed as a petitioner or respondent no.2 is therefore of no significance. There is absolutely no conflict of interest between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 /A4 as all of them are the accused in the said two cases filed against them by the respondent no.1/complainant under Sections 499/500 I.P.C. and considering the aforesaid aspects, in my view, the applications for transposition can be granted under the Court's inherent powers notwithstanding that there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It must be noted that the Code was not enacted to meet each and every situation which may arise in the proceedings, under the said Code. 7. With the above observations, both the applications are hereby allowed. Amendment to be carried out within one week. It is made clear to the parties that the petitions may be decided at the stage of admission. 5 Interim relief to continue. N. A. BRITTO, J. oc.