Jaiprakash S/O Nago Dhongade vs Shree Ram City Union Fin. Ltd. Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2552 Bom

                                     25 appln. tr. 142.22.odt..odt
                                              1/6


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

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (TRANSFER) NO.142 OF 2022



Jaiprakash s/o Nago Dhongade,            ... APPLICANT
aged about 55 yrs. Occ: Business,
R/o Shivaji Chaok Chandgaon Road,
Bramhapuri Tah. Bramhapuri,
Distt. Chandrapur


                          // VERSUS //



Shri Ram City Union                      ... RESPONDENT
Finance Ltd, through its Power
of attorney holder and authorized signatory
Mr. Sanjay Haribhau Hedau Aged about 40 yrs,
Occ: Service Legal Executive,
having its branch office at 3rd floor,
Kamala Nehru Complex opp. Jubilee High
School Kashurba Road, Chandrapur,
Tah & Dist. Chandrapur

____________________________________________________
Shri P.S. Wathore, Advocate for the applicant.

____________________________________________________



CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATE:- 16/03/2023

ORAL JUDGMENT 25 appln. tr. 142.22.odt..odt

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned Advocate for the applicant. The

respondent though served has chosen not to appear before

this Court. With the able assistance of learned Advocate for

the applicant, I have gone through the record and

proceedings.

2. In this application, the order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated 29.11.2022 has

been challenged, whereby the learned Sessions Judge was

pleased to reject the application made by the applicant

under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

for transfer of his case from the file of 6 th Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur to the file of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur. The main ground

pleaded in the application for transfer is the convenience of

the complainant and accused. It is stated that on the date of

the cross examination of witness of the complainant, the

Advocate for the accused was absent. Learned Magistrate

without waiting for the Advocate, passed some order 25 appln. tr. 142.22.odt..odt

adverse to the interest of the applicant. On the basis of this

order passed by the learned Magistrate, the applicant stated

that he has apprehension that he may not get justice before

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.6,

Chandrapur.

3. The learned Sessions Judge after granting an

opportunity of hearing to the parties and taking specific

note of the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, Court-6,

rejected the application. Learned Sessions Judge observed

that the application was nothing but an attempt to avoid the

prosecution and delay the trial.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that

the complainant has recorded the consent before the

learned Sessions Judge for transfer of the case, as prayed

for, by the applicant. Learned Advocate submitted that

remaining matters filed by the complainant against the very

accused/applicant are pending in the Court of learned Chief 25 appln. tr. 142.22.odt..odt

Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur. Learned Advocate

therefore, submitted that convenience of the parties in such

cases must be the prime consideration.

5. In order to appreciate the submissions, I have

gone through the record and proceedings. I have perused

the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Chandrapur before whom the case is pending. On

25.11.2022, Learned Magistrate has recorded his anguish

and concern over the conduct of the accused as well as the

conduct of the Advocate. After recording the anguish, the

learned Magistrate proceeded to observe that deliberate

attempt has been made to delay the trial. In view of this

categorical observation made by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, Court-6, learned

Sessions Judge was pleased to ask certain questions to the

learned Advocate appearing for the applicant in the transfer

application. The observations recorded in the order by the

learned Sessions Judge would show that the Advocate was

not able to answer the pertinent questions asked by the 25 appln. tr. 142.22.odt..odt

learned Sessions Judge. On the basis of the available

material, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the

application made by the applicant was nothing but one

more attempt to avoid the prosecution and delay the trial.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of

the view that there is no substance in the submissions

advanced by learned Advocate for the applicant. The

submissions, if examined in the teeth of the undisputed facts

and material on record, seems to be without substance. It is

to be noted that whenever and wherever it is noticed by any

Court that slightest attempt is made to delay the proceeding,

it must not only be thwarted thought but also nipped in the

bud. It is common knowledge that in the cheque bounce

cases, considering the limited defence available to the

accused, every attempt is made to delay the proceeding. In

this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate before whom the

complaint is pending on the basis of his first hand

experience of the conduct and behavior of the parties, made

pertinent observations.

25 appln. tr. 142.22.odt..odt

7. In my view, on going through the record, I am

constrained to observe that present application before this

Court is nothing but one more such attempt to avoid the

criminal prosecution and to delay the trial. I do not find any

flaw in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

8. Accordingly, the application is rejected. The

learned Magistrate is requested to proceed with the matter

expeditiously.

Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

manisha

Signed By:MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE

Signing Date:20.03.2023 14:51