IMPORTANT POINT
Cases relating to same transaction must be clubbed together.

Shrihari, P. Davare, J.—Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner/original accused under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayed that order passed by the Principal District Judge, Latur in Criminal M.A.No.21/2012 below Exhibit No.1 on 12.06.2012 be quashed and set aside and Criminal case nos. STCC 1091/2010, STCC 1468/2010, STCC 154/2011, STCC 592/2011 pending before 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and STCC No.1574/2011 pending before 9th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and STCC 153/2012 pending before 10th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and STCC No.646/2012 pending before 8th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur be transferred and be tried before anyone Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur.

4. Factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner is dealing in the business of share broking, purchase and sale of shares/stocks under the name and style “Radhika Investment” at Latur. The respondent No.1 is also engaged in transaction of shares through the petitioner. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 had filed about seven criminal cases one after another against the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and all the said criminal cases are between the petitioner and respondent no.1 i.e. between the same parties. It is submitted that cause of action arose for all these case is one and the same. It is also submitted that all the cheques have been issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent no.1 out of the same transaction.

5. It is further submitted that, earlier respondent no.1 had filed criminal cases on 14.8.2012 against the petitioner out of which three cases were pending before 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and one was pending before 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and therefore, the petitioner filed Criminal M.A. No.35/2011 to club all the said cases together and learned Principal District Judge, Latur allowed the said application on 14.10.2011 and all the said cases were brought together before 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur for the disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent no.1 had filed one more criminal case i.e. STCC No. 1574/2011 against petitioner on 21.11.2011 arising out of the same transaction and which is pending before 9th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur. Again respondent no.1 had filed STCC No.153/2012 on 15.02.2012 arising out of same transaction against petitioner, which is pending before 10th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur. Hence, the petitioner herein preferred Criminal M.A. No.21/2012 before learned Sessions Judge, Latur on 3.4.2012 requesting to club the four cases pending before 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and one case pending before 10th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and another case pending before 9th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur between the same parties together contending that said cases are arising out of same transaction which are between the same parties. However, said application was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Latur by order dated 12.06.2012.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 3.4.2012, the petitioner has preferred present writ petition for the prayers as stated hereinabove.

7. The petitioner also sought leave to amend the present petition and incorporated that STCC No.646/2012 was also filed by the respondent no.1 against the petitioner which is pending before 8th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur and requested that said case also be clubbed alongwith the abovereferred cases and all the said cases be brought before one and the same court, for the disposal in accordance with law.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 opposed present pet