Dismissed

Vaishali Devdas Khedekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Nov 2009APPLN/933/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No. 933 of 2008, the High Court of Bombay considered a petition for transfer of a criminal case from Khed to Mumbai based on the applicant's residence and inconvenience to female respondents. The Court rejected the application, finding that the offence location and evidence availability in Khed constituted sufficient grounds to retain jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The application for transfer of the criminal case is rejected summarily.

Vaishali Devdas Khedekar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

abs

FARAD CONTINUATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 933 OF 2008

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders

¶7

Court's or Judge's Orders

¶8

Mr. P.G. Sawant for the applicant. Mrs. Anita Bafna for respondent nos.3 to 5. Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 7TH NOVEMBER 2009

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Mrs. Anita Bafna appears for respondent

¶13

nos.3 to 5 and undertakes to file vakalatnama within one week. Undertaking is recorded and accepted.

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

By this application under section 407 of

¶16

the Cr.P.C., the applicant prays for transfer of

¶17

¶18

Criminal Case No.155 of 2004 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khed to the Court of any Magistrate in Mumbai or in the vicinity.

¶19

The ground for transfer alleged is that it is inconvenient to the applicant to go to Khed as she is residing in Mumbai and therefore the case be transferred. The applicant is the wife of respondent no.2. The respondent no.3 is the mother of the respondent no.2. The respondent no.4 is the brother of the respondent no.2 and respondent no.5 is his wife. The respondent no. 2 is stated to be residing in U.S.A. and is not served. In the application, the applicant has alleged that she was residing at Khed, District Ratnagiri when the cruelty was alleged to have been meted out to her by the respondents. The offence is thus committed within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Khed who has taken cognizance of the matter. It is worthy to note that the applicant herself had filed the

¶20

¶21

complaint in the police station at Khed after having left Khed when she was residing in Mumbai. Further more, the offences are alleged to have taken place at Khed. Just as the applicant is a woman, the respondent nos. 3 and 5 are also women and it would be extremely inconvenient for them to travel from Khed to Mumbai. Besides, the alleged witnesses would also be at Khed.

¶22

In my view, sufficient ground has not been made out for transfer of the case. The application is therefore rejected summarily.

Vaishali Devdas Khedekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishali Devdas Khedekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anant Tukaram Nalawade Vs Latika Anant Nalawade and Anr.

Starlight Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State Ofmaharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Banwarilal Saraf Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Gopalan Thazath Pollyikodi Nambiar and Ors. Vs Mrs. Aruna Nitin Mehta and Anr.

Subhaschandra Rikabchand Surana Vs Soni Yarns and Anr.

Subhaschandra Rikabchand Surana Vs Soni Yarns and Anr.