JUDGMENT 1. ON January 17, 1973 the opposite party No. 2 who is a resident of Dimapur in Nagaland filed a petition of complaint against the petitioner in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of two cinematographic films entitled "ao BAPTIST CENTINIAL celebration AT IMPUR" and DR. BILLY GRAHAM's KOHIMA crusade" a copy of the petition of complaint has been annexed to the petition and marked with the letter "a". The learned Magistrate after examining the opposite party No. 2 took cognizance and directed an enquiry to be made by the officer-in-charge of Jodhpur police station. Subsequently by an order dated July 9, 1973 the learned Magistrate directed a judicial enquiry to be made by another magistrate. The said enquiry in the said case which has been registered as case No. C 101 of 1973 is still pending. 2. DURING the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding the opposite party no. 2 filed another complaint on march 5, 1973 in the court of Shri R. S. Bedi, Magistrate First Class, Dimapur alleging that the petitioner had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the same two films. The learned Magistrate at dimapur after perusing the petition of complaint and examining the opposite party No. 2 took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner under section 408 of Indian Penal Code. The said case registered as CR. Case No. 6 of 1973 is also pending. In this application under section 186 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter the new code) the petitioner has prayed that inasmuch as two different courts subordinate to two different High Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and the learned Magistrate at alipore took cognizance earlier, the proceeding pending in the court at dimapur should be discontinued. 3. MR. Sudipta Moitra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the state, has on the other hand contended that before section 186 of the new Code can be attracted the proceedings in the two courts in the two different States must be at the same stage viz. either in the stage of enquiry or at the stage of trial. Mr. 3. MR. Sudipta Moitra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the state, has on the other hand contended that before section 186 of the new Code can be attracted the proceedings in the two courts in the two different States must be at the same stage viz. either in the stage of enquiry or at the stage of trial. Mr. Moitra's further contention is that the proceeding in the Alipore court being at the stage of enquiry and in the Dimapur Court being in the stage of trial, section 186 of the new code has no manner of application. 4. BEFORE the new Code came into force the petitioner had sought this Court's intervention under section 185 (2) of the old Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the old Code. By a judgment delivered on February 18, 1974 in Criminal Revision case No. 730 of 1973 A. K. De J, had declined to interfere holding, inter alia, that as an enquiry had been ordered in the Alipore case under section 202 of the Code, there was no knowing whether the complaint would be dismissed or process would be issued, and that being the state of uncertainty, the stage for making an order under section 185 (2) of the Code had not been reached. Since the aforesaid judgment the old Code has been repealed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner in both the courts in Alipore and Diampur would now be governed by the provisions of the new code. Therefore, it has to be seen whether under section 186 of the new code, the petitioner can be given the relief he has prayed for. Section 186 of the new Code reads as follows : "where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided- (a) if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court; (b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced, and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued". The aforesaid section is very clear in its terms. The aforesaid section is very clear in its terms. From the words "and a question arises as to which of them ought to enquire into or try that offence" it is apparent that a. High court can exercise its powers under the said section if the proceedings pending in two or more courts are either in a stage of enquiry or in a stage of trial. If this was not so a person could lodge a complaint against another person in one court, bring it to a stage of trial and thereafter go to another court in the same State or a different State and lodge a fresh complaint. If the contention of the learned Advocate for the state had to be accepted a High Court could not interfere till the latter proceedings reached the trial stage. This obviously could not have been the intention of the legislature in enacting the said section, the object of which was to prevent a person being unnecessarily harassed over the same cause of action in more courts than one. 5. IN the instant case it is not disputed that the subject matter of the complaints in the two courts in Alipore and Dimapur is the same nor it is disputed that the proceeding in the Alipore Court was started earlier. If both the proceedings are permitted to continue then the petitioner will have to shuttle from Alipore to Dimapur to answer to the same charge in two different States. Therefore, to avoid harassment to the petitioner and in accordance with the provisions of section 186 (b) of the new Code I direct that the proceeding pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 6 of 1973 in the court of the learned Magistrate at Dimapur under the High court at Gauhati, be discontinued. The learned Magistrate be informed accordingly. The Rule is thus made absolute.