1. Petitioner in all the above said cases are the accused persons arraigned in different Crime Numbers.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though all the above said crime numbers including the cases in which the charge sheets have been filed in C.C.No.2053/2014 and 2054/2014 arising out of the Crime Nos. 138/2014 and 137/2014 on the file of the Gandhi Chowk Police Station in respect of the same transaction and incident, the police have registered different crime numbers in order to cause inconvenience to the accused persons. Therefore, it is contended that the alleged offences committed by all the above accused persons (petitioners) ought to have been consolidated and ought to have been filed one comprehensive charge sheet and should not have registered different crime numbers and investigated independently by filing separate charge sheets on the basis of each and individual crime number.

3. Learned Additional S.P.P. who is appearing for the State in all the above said cases defended Gandhi Chowk Police submitting that, though the incident has happened on 25.06.2014, the time of the incident is shown as between 5.30 to 6.00 p.m., but there are different acts alleged against different accused persons and the aggrieved persons are also different. Therefore, they have filed independent complaints, as such, the police have registered independent crime numbers. Though he contends that independent complaints are registered, but incident and object of the incident are of one and the same transaction and it happened between 5.30 to 6.00 p.m. on that particular day. Therefore, he submits that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the whole incident has taken place constituting common transaction, the Court may issue appropriate direction to the jurisdictional Court as well as to the jurisdictional police in this regard.

4. In order to appreciate the above said rival contentions, it is just and necessary for this Court to have the brief factual matrix of the case. I would like refer to the facts which relates to Crime Nos. 137 and 138 of 2014 which were culminated in C.C.Nos.2054/2014 and 2053/2014 respectively and thereafter, I would like to deal with the contents of the FIR in Crime No. 139/2014 and others.

4(a) In Crl. P. No. 201109/2014 pertaining to Crime No. 137/2014, the police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 336, 353, 333, 307, 504, 506 r/w. section 149 of IPC. A person by name B.R. Simpi, CPC-363 of Bijapur Rural Police, lodged a complaint specifically stating that on 26.05.2014, the complainant and other police personnel went near Janatha Bazaar on Badhobust duty, as some people were celebrating joy in the context of Sri. Narendra Modi’s swearing in as Prime Minister of India. While discharging their duties the police went to near Janatha Bazaar, for bundobust at that time, the accused Ageeba son of Mobin Inamdar, Ali Bagawan, Moinuddin Bilage and other 40 to 60 persons holding deadly weapons in their hands like clubs, iron-rods etc. were hurling abusive words and also prevented the police personnel from discharging their duty, created mob and assaulted the complainant with the iron-rod etc. It is specifically stated that the said incident has happened at about 6.00 pm. The further statement of the said Simpi was recorded on 27.05.2014, in which he has improved his statement stating that, on that particular day of the incident, about 100 to 120 people were gathered near Janatha Bazaar and they were throwing stones and hurling slogans and giving threatening calls to the police and other mob, and he gives the details of about 140 accused persons stating that they were all present at the time of incident and committed such offences. On the basis of such information, after due investigation, the police have submitted the charge sheet in Crime No. 137/2014 which culminated in C.C.No. 2054/2014.

4(b) In Crl. P. No. 201109/2014 pertaining to C