283/2020, 420/34 IPC, Khargone M.P., (iv) FIR No 002/2021, 420 IPC, Gokul Road, Hubali, Karnataka, (v) FIR No 090/2021, 406/420/120(B) IPC, Dhadhara, Gumla, Jharkhand registered against the Petitioner in different states at various police stations to the Court of the competent jurisdiction at Guna, Madhya Pradesh where proceedings are pending in the FIR No. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that petitioner being aged 60 years has been foisted with several cases in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Jharkhand for similar offences and he was never appointed as the Director of the company – G. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3 would contend that complainant(s)/witnesses are different in each of the cases and they cannot be penalized for having lodged the prosecution by making them to travel all the way either from Karnataka or from Jharkhand to the State of Madhya Pradesh and each case having been registered by the jurisdictional police on the basis of individual cause of action it would not be apt and appropriate to transfer all the cases to one court as sought for by the petitioner and hence, they have prayed for rejection of the petition. Union of India and others (2021) 1 SCC 1 we deem it appropriate to exercise power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to accede to the relief claimed to the extent of consolidation of the FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh for being tried together as one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest and State also. The prayer for transfer of the cases pending in the States of Karnataka and Jharkhand to the State of Madhya Pradesh stands rejected 7.
Case Title: AMANAT ALI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No.-000432 / 2022
