IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 82 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 83 OF 2008. Usman Raza Faatmi & Ors. ..... ...... ......Petitioners V/s Faiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. ..... ...... ...Respondents. Mr.P.A.Sabestian i/by M/s.D.S.Legal Associates, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.Vibhav Krishna i/by M/s.Juris Consillis for respondent No1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 29/1/08 PC: The present petitioners claim to have financed respondent No.1 for producing a film and for repayment of the said amount respondent No.1 has allegedly issues cheques in favour of present petitioners. When the cheques were deposited same were not encashed but dishonoured and consequently complaints under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the present petitioners before different Courts. As the cases were being tried in different Courts the respondent No.1 moved an application for transfer of the said cases to one Court for their hearing and decision. During pendency of the said transfer application respondent No.1 filed counter complaints against the 1 present petitioners. In view of pendency of nine cases touching the same incident, according to respondent No.1 a further application for transfer was moved seeking transfer of all the cases viz. Five cases filed by the petitioners and four cases filed by respondent No.1 to one Court for their trial and disposal. The Sessions Judge being of the view that it would be convenient and appropriate to try the cases by the same trial Judge has allowed the application and directed all the cases to be tried by the same Judge as the parties to all the cases are same and the subject matter also overlapping. Reliance has been placed by the Sessions Judge on a judgment in the case of Sudhir & Ors. V/s State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 CRI. L.J. 1072 which judgment in turn places reliance on an earlier judgment in the case of Natha Lal v/s State of U.P., 1990 Supp SCC 145. The said judgment deals with the procedure to be followed by the Court when cross cases are filed by the parties. The Supreme Court has found it desirable that all the cases need to be tried by the same Court. In this view of the matter I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge. Hence writ petitions are summarily dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage points out that the cases filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would be unnecessarily dragged and prolonged on account of trial of other four cases filed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has no objection to expeditious disposal of all the cases. In the result though writ petitions are summarily 2 dismissed I deem it appropriate to direct that the trial Court dealing with transferred matters shall proceed to expeditiously decide the cases and preferably within a period of six months from today. 29.1.08 3