: 1 : WP-2406-11 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2406 OF 2011 Kisan Baburao @ Anna Hajare ... Petitioner V/s. Suresh Bhikamchand Jain & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. M.J. Bhatt for the Petitioner. Mr. Nilesh V.B. Pawaskar with Mr. Aparna D. Vhatkar for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P., for Respondent No.2-State. CORAM:V.M. KANADE & A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED :22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This Writ Petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed seeking a writ and direction that the criminal case, which is filed by Respondent No.1 in the J.M.F.C. 1st Court, Jalgaon, being Criminal Case No.2911 of 2003, be transferred to Mumbai and be clubbed and heard along with the Criminal Case No.205/S/2003 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Esplanade, Mumbai. Secondly, : 2 : WP-2406-11 it is submitted that the Jalgaon Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the said case, since the cause of action did not arise at Jalgaon and; thirdly, it is submitted that, pursuant to the powers vested in this Court under Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case at Jalgaon may be transferred to Mumbai. 3. Mr. Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, submitted that so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the said issue may be kept open, since he is not pressing the said issue before us and it is submitted that he may agitate this issue before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, since this Court does not have the jurisdiction to consider that aspect. Hence the issue of jurisdiction is kept open and liberty is granted to the Petitioner to agitate the said issue before the appropriate forum. 4. So far as the second submission is concerned, it is submitted that the criminal case which is filed at Mumbai and the case which is filed at Jalgaon, both, are filed on the same cause of action and, therefore, since the first case was filed at Mumbai, the second case, which is filed at Jalgaon, may be transferred to Mumbai. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 and the verification recorded by the learned Magistrate at Mumbai and also at Jalgaon. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1, however, submitted that he has no objection if the case at Mumbai is transferred to Jalgaon. He submitted that so far as the Jalgaon case is concerned, the cause of action in that case was pertaining to alleged statement made by the Petitioner at Nanded, whereas the case which is filed at Mumbai was in respect of a statement made by the Petitioner at Dehu : 3 : WP-2406-11 Road, Pune. It was submitted that, therefore, the cause of action in both these cases is different. He then submitted that the evidence in the case at Jalgaon is over and an application was filed by the Petitioner for recalling one witness which was rejected by the Jalgaon Court, and against the said order a Criminal Revision Application is filed by the Petitioner before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court and the said application is still pending. It was submitted that otherwise the case would have reached the stage of recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1, however, submitted that he had no objection if the case filed at Mumbai is transferred to Jalgaon. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the case at Mumbai be transferred to Jalgaon. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and the consent given by the Respondent No.1, in our view, it would be appropriate if the Criminal Case No.205/S/2003, which is pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Esplanade, Mumbai is transferred and is clubbed along with the Criminal Case No.2199 of 2003 and may be heard by the Jalgaon Court and decided by a common judgment. 6. The Writ Petition, accordingly, is disposed. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)