Disposed¶21

Fulchand Bhagwan Khade v. Rajlaxmi Infratech through Its Proprietor Vishal Manoharrao Budhwant

Bombay HC23 Dec 2025APPLN/3765/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of Section 138 NI Act cheque complaint; physically disabled accused (64% disability); resident of Beed City; transfer sought from J.M.F.C. Parbhani to J.M.F.C. Beed; video conferencing in lieu of transfer; exemption from personal appearance; transfer at behest of accused not entertained; expedited disposal within 6 months; SCC No.725/2024; Criminal Application No. 3765 of 2025; Aurangabad Bench; Rakesh Kumar Kalra; Kasthuripandain v. RBL Bank.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without ordering transfer of SCC No.725/2024; applicant given liberty to approach the learned J.M.F.C., Parbhani for video-conferencing facility, and the Parbhani proceeding expedited with a direction to dispose of it within six months. ¶21

Fulchand Bhagwan Khade Vs Rajlaxmi Infratech through Its… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether SCC No.725/2024 (complaint under Section 138 NI Act) pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Parbhani should be transferred to the learned J.M.F.C., Beed, on the ground that the applicant-accused suffers from 64 percent physical disability and resides at Beed City. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The proceeding SCC No.725/2024 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Parbhani is expedited and is to be disposed of within a period of 6 months.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The presence of the applicant can be secured through video conferencing.

¶20

Key takeaways

The applicant is at liberty to approach the learned J.M.F.C., Parbhani for availing the facility of video conferencing to attend the proceedings in SCC No.725/2024; no transfer to Beed was ordered.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.: Criminal Application by the accused seeking transfer of SCC No.725/2024, a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act filed by the respondent, from the learned J.M.F.C., Parbhani to the learned J.M.F.C., Beed, on the ground of the applicant's 64 percent physical disability and residence at Beed City — disposed of without transfer. The Court observed that the applicant's presence can be secured through video conferencing and granted liberty to approach the Parbhani Court for that facility; the Parbhani proceeding was expedited and directed to be disposed of within six months. Counsel for the applicant relied on Rakesh Kumar Kalra deaf Divyant Vs. State Goverment of NCT Delhi [(2023) 6 High Court Cases (Del) 668]; counsel for the respondent relied on the Apex Court order in Kasthuripandain S. Vs. RBL Bank Limited, Transfer Petition (s) (Criminal) No.515/2014, dated 24.06.2024, refusing transfer of a Section 138 complaint at the behest of the accused.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:37362

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

931 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3765 OF 2025

¶5

FULCHAND BHAGWAN KHADE VERSUS

¶6

RAJLAXMI INFRATECH THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR VISHAL MANOHARRAO BUDHWANT

¶7

Ms.Akshara Madke, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, Advocate for the sole respondent.

¶8

( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

¶9

DATE : 23 DECEMBER, 2025

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

¶12

This application has been filed for transferring SCC No.725/2024 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Parbhani, which is filed by the respondent u/s 138 of the N.I.Act. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the applicant is suffering from 64 percent physical disability. He is resident of Beed City. Therefore she is praying for transferring the aforesaid pending case before the learned J.M.F.C.at Beed, in order to attend the day to day proceedings. She has

¶13

khs/Dec.2025/3765

¶14

¶15

also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Kalra deaf Divyant Vs. State Goverment of NCT Delhi [(2023) 6 High Court Cases (Del) 668] . She has further submitted that the case which is pending before the Parbhani Court, is at the stage of recording evidence of the parties and it would be very appropriate for the applicant, being a physically disabled person, if the said case is transferred to the learned J.M.F.C. Court, Beed.

¶16

Per contra, the learned Advocate Mr.Jadhavar for the respondent strongly opposed the instant application. According to him, the applicant is an accused in the case, which is pending before Parbhani Court. He further submits that the transfer of cases may not be entertained at the behest of accused/applicant. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kasthuripandain S. Vs. RBL Bank Limited in Transfer Petition (s) (Criminal) No.515/2014, dated 24.06.2024 . Bare perusal of the said order discloses that the Hon’ble Apex Court has refused to entertain the transfer of complaint u/s 138 of the N.I.Act at the behest of the accused and further observed that the accused therein can always

¶17

apply for grant of exemption from personal appearance before the

¶18

khs/Dec.2025/3765

¶19

concerned Court. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent, in this case also the applicant can apply for seeking exemption from personal appearance before the learned J.M.F.C. Parbhani. Moreover, the applicant can also avail the facility of video conferencing in the event his presence is required.

¶20

Hence in that view of the matter, it is observed that the presence of the applicant can be secured through video conferencing. The applicant is at liberty to approach to the learned J.M.F.C. Parbhani for availing the facility of video conferencing to attend the proceedings pending at Parbhani Court in SCC No.725/2024.

¶21

In view of the above terms, the petition is disposed of. The proceeding SCC No.725/2024 pending before the learned J.M.F.C.,Parbhani is expedited and be disposed of within a period of 6 months.

¶22

( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)

¶23

khs/Dec.2025/3765

Fulchand Bhagwan Khade v. Rajlaxmi Infratech through Its Proprietor Vishal Manoharrao Budhwant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fulchand Bhagwan Khade v. Rajlaxmi Infratech through Its Proprietor Vishal Manoharrao Budhwant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shirishkumar Jaywantrao Bhamre Vs the State of Mah

Anilkumar S/O. Gangadharrao Bhojraj Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Somnath S/O. Abhangrao Parve Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kachru Ambadas Ambedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Baban Santu Sonawane Vs Ravindra Purushottam Birole and Others

Vaibhav Suresh Puppal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others