Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199, Art. 13(a)---Writ jurisdiction---Multiple FIRs on similar allegations---Abetment through social media---Doctrine of sameness---Petitioner, a political leader, was implicated in multiple FIRs registered across different police stations in Lahore in the aftermath of countrywide unrest following the arrest of a political leader on 09.05.2023---Allegation against petitioner was incitement through social media posts---Petitioner contended that the various FIRs stemmed from a continuous sequence of events arising out of the same cause, and therefore violated the rule enunciated in Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) and the doctrine of sameness---Held, the doctrine of sameness does not apply where alleged offences occurred at different times and places, involved distinct acts of violence and accused persons, and were not part of the same transaction---Only where proximity in time, place, and continuity of action exists can joinder of trials be considered---General consolidation of all FIRs unjustified in present facts. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 • Shahid Ali v. The State and others PLJ 2024 Peshawar (Note) 222 • Mst. Sanam Javed v. Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala and others 2025 PCr.LJ 148 • Md. Mosaddar Hoque and Md. Abdul Rouf v. The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 131 • S.M.K. Alvi v. The Crown PLD 1953 FC 189 • Shahadat Khan v. Home Secretary, West Pakistan PLD 1969 SC 158 • Khan Mohammad v. The State 1971 PCr.LJ 762 • Choragudi Yenkatadri v. Emperor ILR 33 Mad. 522 • Babulul Chuukhani v. King-Emperor 65 I.A. 158 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----Ss. 154, 177, 179, 180, 233, 239---Multiple FIRs---Trial jurisdiction---Abetment---Same transaction---Scope---Petitioner claimed all FIRs related to one act of abetment and sought their transfer to District Faisalabad where a related trial was pending---Held, section 180 Cr.P.C. allows concurrent jurisdiction either at the place of abetment or where the abetted offence was committed---However, it does not support consolidation of multiple distinct offences across districts committed by different individuals, even if allegedly instigated by the same act---Section 239 Cr.P.C. permits joinder only if offences were committed in the course of the same transaction---Factual distinctiveness of each FIR, including time, location, and participants, precludes their joint trial---Petitioner’s reliance on section 180 Cr.P.C. and the “same transaction” doctrine was misplaced in view of settled judicial interpretation. (c) Interpretation of "same transaction" under Cr.P.C. ----Ss. 233, 234, 235, 236, 239---Joint trial---Same offence v. different offences---Judicial tests---Scope---Held, “same transaction” must reflect proximity of time and place, continuity of action, and community of purpose---Factors such as causal connection, participation of same accused, and interdependent events are relevant but not sufficient unless community of design and factual nexus is established---Courts have consistently held that each case must be examined on its own merits to determine whether joinder is permissible---Generalized reliance on political context or common cause is insufficient to justify consolidation. Disposition: Petition dismissed. However, competent trial court may consider limited joinder under section 239 Cr.P.C. in cases where factual record shows proximity in time, place, and continuity of events.