As per case facts, petitioners (accused Numbers 8 to 13) filed transfer criminal petitions seeking to withdraw multiple criminal cases from Srikakulam and Machilipatnam courts, requesting their transfer and consolidation ... with a case pending in Visakhapatnam. They argued that the evidence, witnesses, and documents were substantially identical across these cases related to a financial establishment, and consolidation would alleviate harassment and logistical hardships. The respondent State opposed the transfer, asserting that each case involved distinct victims, complaints, and causes of action, making consolidation legally untenable, especially since the petitioners had been discharged for a key charge in the case they wished to club others with. The question arose whether these criminal cases should be transferred and consolidated given the arguments of commonality versus distinctness and convenience. Finally, the court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the contentions. It highlighted that the petitioners were discharged for a critical charge in the target case, making the cases dissimilar. The court emphasized that transfer is an extraordinary measure, and the convenience of the prosecution, witnesses, and the broader societal interest, particularly the numerous victims residing in the original jurisdictions, outweighed the petitioners' request.