1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3288 OF 2008
1 Shivaji s/o Dnyanoba Sable,
age 23 years, occ. Driver,
r/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,
Dist. Parbhani ...Applicant
ig (Orig.complainant)
VERSUS
1 The State of Maharashtra,
2 Mahadu s/o Ramchandra Dongre,
age 37 years,occ. Agril.,
r/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani,
3 Munjaji s/o Pandurang Dongre,
age 35 years,occ. Agril.,
r/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani,...Respondent
4 Ram s/o Sadhu Dongre,
age 25 years,occ. Agril.,
r/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani,
5 Rangnath s/o Marotrao Dongre,
age 70 years,occ. Agril.,
r/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani,
6 Waman s/o Rangnath Dongre,
age 35 years,occ. Agril.,
r/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::
2
7 Prabhu s/o Nivrutti Dongre,
age 40 years,occ. Agril.,
r/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani,
8 Gunaji s/o Gangaram Dongre,
age 30 years,occ. Agril.,
r/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani, ...Respondents
(Orig.accused nos. 2 to 8)
ig .....
Shri P.N.Kalani, advocate for the applicant
Shri B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P.for respondent no.1
Nobody for respondent nos. 2 to 8, since they have
refused to accept the notices
.....
CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.
DATED : 28th JULY, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Perused.
2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of
the learned respective counsel for the parties, this application is
taken up for final hearing.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::
3
3 The applicant (original complainant) has preferred the
present application requesting that Sessions Case No. 51 of 2005
pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar,
District Nanded be transferred to any other court for disposal in
accordance with law.
4 The applicant is the original complainant in the offence
registered with police station, Mukhed, District Nanded bearing
No. 45 of 2005 on 19.4.2005. The charge sheet came to be filed
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mukhed, District
Nanded after the completion of investigation under Sections 302,
201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code therein against respondent
nos. 2 to 8. Thereafter the said case was committed to the court
of Sessions, Kandhar, District Nanded and it was numbered as
Sessions Case No. 51 of 2005. Accordingly, charge was framed
against respondent nos. 2 to 8 and matter was posted for
evidence.
5 The applicant (original complainant) sought
adjournment as he was not feeling well, but the learned
Additional Sessions Judge imposed heavy costs upon him on two
occasions. The applicant submits that he is a poor person and was
unable to pay the said costs. The applicant further submits that
the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::
4
proper and, therefore, the applicant lost his confidence in the
Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, he filed Miscellaneous
Application No. 14 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge,
Nanded for transfer of Sessions Case No. 51 of 2005, contending
that there was no possibility of impartial inquiry, since the
applicant has lost confidence in the Additional Sessions Judge,
and also contended that the court at Kandhar is not convenient
for the witnesses and the accused persons. It is further submitted
that the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed is
convenient for all. However, said Miscellaneous Application No. 14
of 2008 came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge,
Nanded on 28.8.2008. Hence, the applicant has preferred the
present application challenging the validity and legality of the
said order, with a prayer that Sessions Case No. 51 of 2005
pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar,
District Nanded be tranferred to any other court for disposal in
accordance with law.
6 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
7 At the out set, considering the rival submissions, it is
pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who
imposed the costs upon the applicant has been already
transferred and, therefore, there is no substance in the present
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::
5
application. Besides that, the learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that he has no grievance against the present Additional
Sessions Judge, Kandhar and, therefore, also nothing survives in
the present application.
8 Apart from that, even considering the factor of
convenience, it is for the accused persons to prefer application for
transfer, if any inconvenience is caused to them, and the
applicant (original complainant), in fact, has no basis therefor.
9 Besides that, the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded has
rejected the application of the applicant vide order passed in
Miscellaneous Application NO. 14 of 2008 on 28.8.2008 by way of
reasoned order and on perusal of the contents of the said order, I
am of the view that there is no necessity to interfere therein in
the present application.
10 It appears that since the earlier Additional Sessions
Judge imposed the heavy costs upon the applicant herein, the
applicant herein preferred the application for transfer, but now
the said cause does not subsist since the said Additional Sessions
Judge has already been transferred as afore said.
11 It is the contention of the applicant that the court of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::
6
Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar is not convenient for the
witnesses, but it is for the prosecution to consider the said aspect
and to take suitable steps, if required, and not for the applicant
(original complainant) herein.
12 In the circumstances, the present application bears no
substance and same is devoid of any merits and same is required
to be rejected.
13 In the result, the present application fails and same
stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly.
(Shrihari P.Davare J.)
dbm/crap3288.08
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::