bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 437 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 437 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 437 OF 2008 Shri Suraj Prakash Girotra ... Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Dinesh Tiwari for the petitioner. Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 State. Mr.T.A.Thakur for the respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 21ST APRIL, 2008 21ST APRIL, 2008 21ST APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition seeks transfer of the C.C. No.235/IX/2003 pending before the J.M.F.C., Mathura to the Court of 22nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai where C.C.No.1205/PW/2006 is pending. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the proceedings in both, Mathura as well as before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mumbai, have arisen out of the same transaction in respect of cheques bearing Nos.210546 and 210547 of Punjab and Sind Bank, Juhu Branch, Mumbai. The contention of the petitioner is that he has lodged a complaint on 31.10.2002 with the 2 Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai in respect of theft of the aforesaid cheques. Later an F.I.R. was registered against the respondent No.2 under Sections 381, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contends that these cheques were thereafter presented for clearance by respondent No.2 and since those cheques were dishonoured, the respondent No.2 issued legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Mathura. In view of this, the petitioner contends that both the proceedings must be tried before the Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai. 3. A bare perusal of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which defines the power of the High Court to transfer cases, makes it clear that only those cases which are pending before a Court which is subordinate to the High Court can be transferred by the High Court to any other subordinate Court or to itself. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the Court of J.M.F.C., Mathura is subortinate to this Court and, therefore, in my opinion, the prayer sought in the petition cannot be granted. 4. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgement in the case of Navinchandra Navinchandra Navinchandra N. N. N. Majithia v/s State of Maharashtra & ors., reported Majithia v/s State of Maharashtra & ors., reported Majithia v/s State of Maharashtra & ors., reported 3 in in in (2000) 7 SCC 640 (2000) 7 SCC 640 (2000) 7 SCC 640, is of no avail. That judgment was delivered in the peculiar facts arising in that case as observed in para 29. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also contended that the case pending in Mathura can be transferred to Mumbai under Section 186(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision of law has no application to the facts in the present case. The section would be attracted only if two or more Courts take cognizance of the same offence. In the present case, the offences being dealt with in Mathura and Mumbai are different, the complainants being different. 6. In my view, the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted and, therefore, it is rejected. 7. Writ petition rejected.