Bombay High Court
Nanda Vasantrao Devghare vs Vitthal S/O. Fakiraji Mankar on 8 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 appln.14.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPPLN) NO. 14 OF 2017
( Nanda Vasantrao Devghare..vs..Vitthal Fakiraji Mankar)
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri A.R.Ingole, Advocate for applicant.
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 8 , 2017
The tendency of the litigants like present applicant
is on rise to make reckless allegations against the courts. Such
tendency has to be curbed then and there otherwise it will be
very difficult for a Court to dispense with the justice.
2] The present applicant faced a criminal prosecution
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, and the same was decided by the
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class(Court No.2),Warud
District-Amravati and after appreciating the complainant's
case learned Magistrate in S.C.C.No.276/2008 held the
present applicant as guilty. Against the said judgment
statutory appeal is filed by the present applicant and the same
is pending before the competent Appellate Court.
3] It appears that, in the meanwhile the applicant was
also facing another complaint bearing S.C.C.No. 416/2008
and it was also pending before the same learned Judge who
has decided the earlier S.C.C.No.276/2008.
4] It appears that the applicant has innovated a way
to get her matter shunted from the said Court's file by
complaining against the learned Judge before learned
2 appln.14.17.odt
Principal District Judge at Amravati. Without there being any
basis she submitted before the Learned Principal District
Judge,Amravati that she is nursing apprehension in her mind
that she will not get justice. Thereafter, she immediately filed
an application under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure before learned Sessions Judge,Amravati for
transferring her case from the file of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class(Court No.2),Warud to the of file of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class(Court No.1),Warud.
The application filed on behalf of the present applicant was
registered as Misc.Criminal Application No.78/2015. The
learned Sessions Judge,Amravati rejected the said application
vide order dated 8/12/2016. While rejecting the application
learned Sessions Judge noticed that there is no substance in
the application under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The learned Judge also noticed that the ground
which was sought to be urged before him cannot be a ground
for transfer.
Hence, the present application under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5] I have heard learned advocate for applicant. He
submits that since the applicant was convicted by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class(Court No.2),Warud in
S.C.C.No.276/2008 there is an apprehension in the mind of
the applicant that she will not get justice from the said learned
Magistrate and therefore, she wants that her case to be
transferred to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class(Court No.1),Warud.
3 appln.14.17.odt
6] The complaint in which, the applicant was accused,
was found to be guilty by learned Magistrate by delivering the
judgment. It is not the case of the present applicant that in the
said proceeding any opportunity was denied to her. It was
never case of the present applicant that though particular
defence was sought to be raised by the present applicant it
was curbed by the learned Judge. The statutory appeal filed
by the present applicant against her conviction is still pending
before the learned Appellate Court.
7] It appears from chronology that other criminal
complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act is also pending on the file of the
very same learned Magistrate, therefore firstly, applicant gave
a complaint to the learned Principal District Judge,Amravati
against the said learned Magistrate. Thus, it appears to me
that the present applicant started trying to create a ground in
her favour for shunting the matter from the file of learned
Magistrate. After filing the complaint before learned Principal
District Judge,Amravati application under Section 408 of Code
of Criminal Procedure for transfer the matter was filed.
8] Merely because a particular case is decided against
the litigant there is no reason for the said litigant to imagine
in his/her mind that his/her other case will not be decided in
accordance with law. Especially, in the present case it was
never the case of the applicant that opportunity to defend her
case was not afforded to her by learned Magistrate. The
Courts are bound to decide the complaints,applications,
appeals and other proceedings in accordance with law.
Merely because a particular decision is not as per choice of
4 appln.14.17.odt
particular litigant that cannot be a ground for making such
frivolous applications. It is very easy for the litigants to make
a wild allegation against a Judge behind his back which are
not supported by any other material.
9] The application under Section 408 of Code of
Criminal Procedure on the part of the present applicant is
nothing but an attempt to pollute the stream of administration
of justice. Such applications are required to be dealt with iron
hand in order to inject the confidence in the mind of the
litigants . Hence, the application is rejected with costs of Rs.
25,000/- . The costs should be recovered as arrears of land
revenue.
JUDGE
kitey
