Allowed

Prasannasheel S/O Vishnupant Bhagat and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2017APPLN/1997/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench allowed an application regarding territorial jurisdiction over a criminal case. The court directed the transfer of proceedings from the Magistrate at Aurangabad to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pune, relying on a previous judgment.

What did the court decide?

Regular Criminal Case No. 1755 / 2017 was transferred from the XXth Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune.

Prasannasheel S/O Vishnupant Bhagat and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

APPLN1997.2017.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1997 OF 2017

¶5

1.	Prasannasheel S/o Vishnupant Bhagat, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Private Employment, Residing at Swaraj Residency, Flat No. S-303, Chikhli Road, Moshi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune.
2.	Mrs. Nirmala W/o Vishnupant Bhagat, Age : 66 years, Occupation : Household, Residence as above.
3.	Vishnupant S/o Marotirao Bhagat, Age : 73 years, Occupation : Nil, Residing presently at above address.
4.	Dr. Mrs. Utpala W/o Sushil Fale, Age : 35 years, occupation : Medico, Residing presently at C-4/14, H.D.F.C. Colony, Taluka Haveli, District Pune.
5.	Sushil S/o Sevakram Fale, Age : 39 years, Occupation and Residence as above. … Applicants
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad.
2.	The Senior Police Inspector, Jawahar Nagar, Aurangabad.
3.	Mrs. Ashwini W/o Prasansheel Bhagat, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Service, Residing at Plot No. 201, Parichay Apartment, Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad. … Respondents Flat No. 201

¶6

APPLN1997.2017.odt

¶7

¶8

Mr Hemant Surve, Advocate a/w Mr Kshitij Surve, Advocate for the applicants Mr S. J. Salgare, APP for respondent/State Mr A. S. Kale, Advocate i/b M/s Talekar & Associates for respondent No. 3

¶9

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 22.08.2017.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. S. Shinde, J.) :

¶12

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶13

2. This application is filed with following prayers:

¶14

F. It be held and declared that the furtherance of Regular Criminal Case No. 1755 / 2017 pending on the files of the learned XXth Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would be a sheer abuse of process of law for lack of availability of territorial jurisdiction;

¶15

G. Consequence thereof, the charge-sheet filed by P.S., Jawaharnagar bearing registration number I - 93 / 2017 dated 15.07.2017 for offences punishable under sections

¶16

APPLN1997.2017.odt

¶17

¶18

498 - A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 may kindly be ordered to be presented before the appropriate Court of Law having territorial jurisdiction;

¶19

. However, Shri. Surve, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, during the course of hearing, restricts the reliefs claimed in the instant application to the extent of prayer clause 'G' subject to granting him liberty to approach the competent court at Pune for presenting an application for discharge, in case the proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 1755 / 2017 pending on the files of the learned XXth Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are transferred to the concerned court at Pune.

¶20

He submits that, when the entire cause of action has arisen at Pune, the court of XXth Judicial Magistrate First Class at Aurangabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the Regular Criminal Case No. 1755 / 2017. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Bench presided over by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

¶21

the matter of Shekhar Shivdas Mahire & Ors. Vs. Sou. Sarikabai Shekhar Mahire & Anr . reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1766 .

¶22

¶23

APPLN1997.2017.odt

¶24

Mr Kale, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that, since the applicants have confined the reliefs claimed in the application to the extent of prayer clause 'G', he has instructions from respondent No. 3 to make the statement that, she has no objection for transferring the proceedings Regular Criminal Case No. 1755 / 2017 pending on the files of the learned XXth Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pune.

¶25

In light of the above submissions made across the bar and keeping in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shekhar Mahire (cited supra), we are inclined to allow this application in terms of prayer clause 'G'. Hence, the following order.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) Regular Criminal Case No. 1755 / 2017 pending on the files of the learned XXth Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune.

¶28

APPLN1997.2017.odt

¶29

¶30

(ii) The Court of CJM, Pune, as per the administrative instructions, may itself conduct the case or transfer the case forthwith to the concerned JMFC.

¶31

(iii) Needless to observe that, the applicants are at liberty to tender an application for discharge before the concerned court on the grounds other than territorial jurisdiction.

¶32

Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

¶33

to costs.

¶34

[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. S. SHINDE ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

sgp

Prasannasheel S/O Vishnupant Bhagat and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasannasheel S/O Vishnupant Bhagat and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin S/O Ramdas Paitl and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anna S/O. Mhatardeo Kolte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Milind @ Pravin S/O. Babu Survase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satish S/O Soma Wade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Sakharam Nagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Sakharam Nagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anrs