Dismissed

Yalavva Raju Inchurkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2022APPLN/65/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal application seeking transfer of trial from Jaisinghpur to Solapur was rejected. The court held that since trial had commenced and prosecution witnesses were examined, no case was made out for transferring proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No.65 of 2020 rejected; Interim Application No.1207 of 2022 disposed of.

Yalavva Raju Inchurkar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

44-APL-65-2020 With-IA-1207-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2020 WITH

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1207 OF 2022

¶5

Yalavva Raju Inchurkar ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for applicant.Mr.Arfan Sait, APP, for State.

¶7

Mr. Priyal g. Sarda, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. Namdeo s Metkari, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. Amit Patil, PSI, Kurndwad, Kolhapur Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 24^th JUNE, 2022.

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

This is an application to transfer Sessions Case No.6 of 2016

¶12

pending before the Sessions Court at Jaisinghpur to the Session Court at Solapur for trial.

¶13

The first information report was registered by the applicant vide C.R. No.17 of 2016 for offences under Sections 306, 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code with Kurundwad Police Station. On completing investigation charge-sheet was filed and the proceedings are pending before the Sessions Court at Jaisinghpur.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the first informant. She is residing at village Kamatha,

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

Sunny Thote

¶17

44-APL-65-2020 With-IA-1207-2022.doc

¶18

Tal. North Solapur, Dist. Solapuar and all the accused persons an residing at Jalihal, Tal. Mangalvedha, Dist. Solapur. The case is pending at Jaisingpur. Most of the witnesses are residets within jurisdiction of the Court at Solapur. The applicant is illitrate and poor lady. The accused are labourers and reside at Jalihal. Both are required to travel to Jaisingpurfrom Kamatha. No prejudice would be caused to any party material. The convenience of the parties is required to be taken into consideration. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Mrudul Damle V/s Central Bureau of Investigation 2012 (3) Supreme Court 637 and the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the of Nabam Ekka and others V/s Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶19

Learned APP submitted that the trial has already commenced and two witnesses are examined by the prosecution. The convenience of all the parties is required to be taken into consideration. It has to be convenient also to the investigation agency. The trial Court at Jaisingpur is seized of the matter, charge is framed and thereafter, two witnesses are examined. At this stage it would not be appropriate to transfer the proceedings to other Court.

¶20

2 of 4

¶21

Sunny Thote

¶22

44-APL-65-2020 With-IA-1207-2022.doc

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that respondents are working as sugarcane cutting workers. Most of the time they are working in surrounding area of Jaisingpur. The witnesses to be examined in the matter are also sugarcane cutting workers and working in the vicinity of Jaisingpur.

¶24

Perused the documents annexed to the application and decision relied upon learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the first informant who has registered the FIR at the concerned Police Station and on account of jurisdiction the proceedings are pending in the Sessions Court at Jaisingpur. In the present case the trial has already commenced and two witnesses are examined by the prosecution. It is difficult to accept that any inconvenience will be caused to the witnesses in the present case. Interim Application No.1207 of 2022 has been preferred by the applicant seeking action against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for making incorrect statements in the reply. That the applicant has been already examined before the trial Court which is not correct. The statement with regard to the distance from Jalihal to Solapur is incorrectly mentioned. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submit that the said contentions were made inadvertently. There was no intention to make any false statement

¶25

3 of 4

¶26

Sunny Thote

¶27

44-APL-65-2020 With-IA-1207-2022.doc

¶28

or mislead the Court.

¶29

Considering the factual matrix of this application no case is

¶30

made out for transferring the proceedings. No action is necessary as prayed in Interim Application No. 1207 of 2022.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Criminal Application No.65 of 2020 is rejected.

¶33

ii) Interim Application No.1207 of 2022 stands disposed of.

¶34

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶35

4 of 4

¶36

Sunny Thote

Yalavva Raju Inchurkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yalavva Raju Inchurkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Vinayak Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devilal Ratanlal Lohar Vs Kamlesh Sohanlal Lohar and Ors.

Kiran Madhi Algan through His Father of Madhi Algan Krishna Nadar Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Yalavva Raju Inchurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sheru Haider Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rana Kapoor S/O. Late Raj Kishore Kapoor Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.