Dismissed

Sau. Smita W/O Rajendra Tayde v. Rajendra S/O Kisan Tayde

Bombay HC5 Oct 2012APPLN/45/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In special application under Cr.P.C., applicant-wife sought transfer of criminal proceedings against husband from Yavatmal to Akola citing residence and employment constraints. Court rejected transfer, noting her attendance is only needed for evidence recording, and directed trial court to dispose of the case within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for transfer of criminal case dismissed; trial court directed to decide case within forty-five days.

Sau. Smita W/O Rajendra Tayde Vs Rajendra S/O Kisan… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 appln45.12.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2012.

¶4

(SAU. SMITA RAJENDRA TAYDE...VS..RAJENDRA KISAN TAYDE)

¶5

¶6

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

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

¶9

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 05, 2012.

¶10

Heard Mr.S.N.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the

¶11

applicant.

¶12

The applicant seeks transfer of Criminal Case No.245 of 2011 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola.

¶13

The applicant is wife of the respondent. She had filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed which is pending as Criminal Case No.245 of 2011 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant stays at Akola and she is working as Pathologist. It is submitted that she has to travel to Yavtmal for hearing of the case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal. The respondent is staying at Yavatmal. As such he can conveniently attend the Court at Yavatmal.

¶14

After having gone through the application and after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the view that there is no substance in the application inasmuch as the

¶15

2 appln45.12.odt

¶16

applicant is not required to attend all the dates of hearing of the case. She will be required to attend only the date when her evidence is required to be recorded.

¶17

At this stage the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case is already fixed for evidence of the applicant. The applicant has attended the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class on many occasions. The case has not been heard and the applicant has to go back to Akola and she has to come back again on the next date of hearing.

¶18

I have gone through the first information report. Considering the charge against the respondent and the number of witnesses, in my opinion, disposal of the case shall not take more than one month if it is heard diligently. As such, I am of the view that instead of considering the prayer for transfer of the case from Yavatmal to Akola it will be just and proper if the trial Court is directed to decide the case expeditiously. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶19

i) The prayer for transfer is dismissed summarily.

¶20

ii) The trial Court is directed to hear the case as expeditiously as possible and decide the same in accordance with law, within forty five days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶21

iii) It will be highly appreciated if the trial Court hears the case on day to day basis and decides the same within the time limit fixed by this Court.

¶22

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

RRaut..

Sau. Smita W/O Rajendra Tayde v. Rajendra S/O Kisan Tayde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Smita W/O Rajendra Tayde v. Rajendra S/O Kisan Tayde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Maharashtra through Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau) Nagpur Vs Shri Avinash S/O Omprakash Gonmode

State of Maharashtra through Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau) Nagpur Vs Shri Sanjay Rameshkumar Kesharwani

Sau. Leeni W/O Chandrakant Sardar and Another Vs Mr. Chandrakant S/O Haridas Sardar

Jayant Maruti Talmale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot

Santosh S/O Hariprasad Zunzunwala Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot

Gajanan S/O Jagdeorao Zamare Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot