Order.- The petitioner filed a complaint in the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad out of which C.C. No. 436 of 1977 arises. In that complaint the. petitioner herein has made N.K. Subramanyam as Accused-1 and V. Rangaswamy as Accused-2, and according to the petitioner, the date of occurrence is April, 1977. The facts alleged in the complaint, according to the petitioner, make out a case under sections 409 and 420, Indian Penal Code. Another complaint has been filed by A-2 in C.C. No. 436 of 1977 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur. In that complaint the date of occurrence is stated to be 20th June, 1977. Rangaswamy, who is the complainant before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirupur has made Sreeramulu as A-1 and G.V.S. Ranga Rao as A-2. Now, G. V. S. Rangarao, A-2 before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, is not the accused in C.C. No. 436 of 1977 on the file of the XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, nor is Subrahmanyam, A-1 in C.C. No. 436 of 1977 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, an accused in the complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur. The facts alleged in the complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, make out a case of an offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code. An application has been filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 436 of 1977 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, under section 186 of the new Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the complaint which has been filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur. Mr.D.V.K. Sarma, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, herein relies upon the provisions of section 186(b) of the new Criminal Procedure Code, and submits that since the complaint filed by his client was the first complaint, this Court has jurisdiction under section 186(b), Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in the complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, although the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. The office has raised the objection that this Court cannot invoke powers under section 186(b), Criminal Procedure Code, having regard to the circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the office has to be accepted and the contention advanced by Mr. The office has raised the objection that this Court cannot invoke powers under section 186(b), Criminal Procedure Code, having regard to the circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the office has to be accepted and the contention advanced by Mr. Sarma has to be rejected; the reason being that the two complaints are different from each other, dates of occurrences are different and some of the accused are also different. Therefore, in, these circumstances, it cannot be said that section 186(b), Criminal Procedure Code, applies to this case. To my mind, section 186(b), Criminal Procedure Code, applies only when both the cases are common and they arise out of the same occurrence or same transaction, and the parties are same, in which case, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court within whose local limits of appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced would have jurisdiction to invoke powers under section 186(b), Criminal Procedure Code, but to a case of this nature section 186(b), Criminal Procedure Code cannot be applicable. 2. Hence, the office objection is accepted.