Sonali Purushottam Devgirkar And ... vs Sanjay Dnyaneshwar Daware
2017 Latest Caselaw 4105 Bom

Judgment

                                                                      appln17.16 11

                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

       CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.17 OF 2016

1. Sonali Purushottam Devgirkar
Aged about 36 years, Occupation Service
R/o Parwati Nagar No.1, Amravati,
Taluka and District Amravati.

2. Rajendra @ Raju Manoharpant
Chinchamalatpure, Aged 50 years,
Occupation : Service.

3. Sanjay Chinchamalatpure,
Aged about 45 years, Occupation Service
No.2 & 3 R/o Juni Basti, Badner,
Tahsil & District Amravati.                               ..... Applicants.

                                ::   VERSUS   ::

Shri Sanjay Dnyaneshwar Daware
Aged about 38 eyars, Occupation Business
R/o Gandhi Chowk, Arvi, Taluka Arvi,
District wArdha.                                         ..... Non-applicant.

================================================================
           Shri Alok Upasani, Counsel for the applicants.
           Shri S.D. Chopde, Counsel for the non-applicant.
================================================================


                                CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                                DATE    : JULY 6, 2017.


                                                                             .....2/-



 Judgment

                                                                   appln17.16 11



ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. Applicant No.1 is a divorcee of non-applicant

Sanjay Daware. Their divorce took place in the year 2011.

Since then the applicant is residing along with her mother at

Amravati. This fact is not in dispute at all.

3. Applicant No.1 and non-applicant were blessed

with twin daughters. There was legal battle in between

applicant No.1 and non-applicant in respect of their custody.

The proceedings for custody were initiated by the non-

applicant in the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division

at Wardha. Applicant No.1 approached to this Court by

moving an application for transfer of the said proceedings for

custody from Wardha to Amravati. The said application

before this Court was registered as Misc. Civil Application

.....3/-

Judgment

appln17.16 11

No.498 of 2015. This Court on 26.6.2015 allowed the

application and ordered the transfer of proceedings, in

respect of custody of twin daughters, from the file of learned

Civil Judge Senior Division at Wardha to the file of learned

Judge of Family Court at Amravati. Accordingly, those

proceedings are still pending on the file of learned Judge of

Family Court at Amravati.

4. A private complaint was filed by the non-applicant

in the Court on learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arvi

i.e. Summary Criminal Case No.724 of 2015. According to the

said complaint, present applicant No.1 along with applicant

Nos.2 and 3 who are her cousins reached to Arvi on 12.6.2015

and, thereafter, they assaulted on the non-applicant.

According to the non-applicant, applicants' acts are

constituted for the offences punishable under Sections 294,

323, 427, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

.....4/-

Judgment

appln17.16 11

Code.

5. Learned Magistrate issued process against the

present applicants vide order dated 20.11.2015. The said order

was questioned by the present applicants by filing a revision

before learned Sessions Judge at Wardha bearing Regular

Criminal Application No.24 of 2016. This revision is still

pending on the file of learned Revisional Court.

6. By the present application under Section 407 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are seeking

transfer of Summary Criminal Case No.724 of 2015 pending on

the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arvi and

Regular Criminal Application No.24 of 2016 pending on the

file of learned Sessions Judge at Wardha to the Courts having

jurisdiction to try such cases at Amravati.

7. Learned counsel Shri Alok Upasani for the

applicants has invited my attention to the certificate issued in

.....5/-

Judgment

appln17.16 11

respect of applicant No.2 which shows that he is disabled to

the extent of 50% thereby restricting his mobility.

He submits that applicant No.1 is required to take

care of minor daughters. It will be very difficult for her to

attend proceedings on every date at Arvi and also at Wardha.

Therefore, he prays for transfer.

8. Though prayer for transfer is opposed by learned

counsel Shri S.D. Chopde for the non-applicant, he did not

dispute the certificate annexed along with application respect

of showing that applicant No.2 is handicap to the extent of

50%.

9. The proceedings for custody are already

transferred from Wardha to Amravati and those proceedings

are still pending. No doubt, only convenience cannot be a

ground for transfer. However, in the light of peculiar facts of

the present case that one case is already transferred by this

.....6/-

Judgment

appln17.16 11

Court to Amravati, no prejudice will be caused to the non-

applicant who is a businessman and having established

medical shop at Arvi.

10. In that view of the matter, Summary Criminal

Case No.724 of 2015 pending on the file of learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class at Arvi and Regular Criminal

Application No.24 of 2016 pending on the file of learned

Sessions Judge at Wardha are hereby ordered to be

transferred to the competent Courts at Amravati.

11. It is made clear that the non-applicant is a

complainant. Therefore, his attendance in the case on every

date is mandatory. However, if he moves an application

before learned Judge at Amravati seeking his personal

exemption, learned Judge is expected to decide such

application favourably. However, he shall cooperate with

learned Judge at Amravati for disposal of the criminal case as

.....7/-

Judgment

appln17.16 11

early as possible.

With these observations, the application is

allowed. Rule is made absolute.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-