Chintaman Tukaram Ahire and Others Vs. Karuna Keshv Ahire - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1105354
CourtMumbai Aurangabad High Court
Decided OnOct-18-2012
Case NumberCriminal Application No.2461 of 2011
JudgeT.V. NALAWADE
AppellantChintaman Tukaram Ahire and Others
RespondentKaruna Keshv Ahire
Excerpt:
code of criminal procedure, 1973 - section 407 – protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 - section 12 - rule. rule made returnable forthwith. both sides argued the matter for final disposal. 2. the application is filed for transfer of criminal case no.9 of 2011 filed under section 12 of the protection of women from domestic violence act 2005, by the present respondent. it is the grievance of the applicants that the complainant, wife of applicant no.4 is working in the same court, where the case is pending and so there is apprehension to the applicants that they may not get justice. the other side has opposed the application. 3. this court has seen the order made by the sessions court. the sessions court has observed that if the contention is accepted, it will mean that the judge can be influenced even by a clerk. though it is true that the judge will not get influenced only because his.....
Judgment:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Both sides argued the matter for final disposal.

2. The application is filed for transfer of criminal case No.9 of 2011 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, by the present respondent. It is the grievance of the applicants that the complainant, wife of applicant No.4 is working in the same Court, where the case is pending and so there is apprehension to the applicants that they may not get justice. The other side has opposed the application.

3. This Court has seen the order made by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court has observed that if the contention is accepted, it will mean that the Judge can be influenced even by a clerk. Though it is true that the Judge will not get influenced only because his staff, is involved as party to the proceeding, this circumstance needs to be considered from the view point of other side and the Judge is required to step in the shoes of the party and then think about the matter.

4. It was submitted that at Sakri, there are two Magistrates. The matter is pending before the J.M.F.C. presided over by Shri Agrawal. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this court holds that the matter can be transferred to other court, where the complainant is not working. However, to take care of the concern of the complainant of delaying tactics, this Court holds that direction needs to be given to the new Magistrate to expeditiously dispose of the matter.

5. Application is allowed. The proceeding bearing Criminal application No.9 of 2011, pending before the J.M.F.C. Court presided over by Shri Agrawal, is hereby withdrawn and the same is transferred to other court of J.M.F.C. at Sakri. The new Court is to take care and see that, in any case, the main matter itself is disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of this order. If there are interim applications, they are to be dealt with immediately after receipt of the order of this Court. If the opponents of the case do not co-operate, further orders can be passed by the Magistrate. As the wife is required to appear in this proceeding, this Court holds that the applicants need to pay costs at Rs.1000/- to the wife. The said amount is to be deposited in the main proceeding before the J.M.F.C., within 15 days from today. The wife is at liberty to withdraw the same.

6. Rule made absolute in the above terms.