Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

A. RAJAK ABBAS SHAIKHversusSHABUDDIN MATIN SHAIKH AND ANR

Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The proceedings are transferred to the Sessions Court having jurisdiction, and the appeal is disposed of.

Summary

The appellant, A. Rajak Abbas Shaikh, was absent from the hearing, while the respondents were represented. The respondents, through counsel, relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320) to argue that the matter should be before a Sessions Court with appropriate jurisdiction. The learned judge agreed and ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the competent Sessions Court, directing the registrar to effect the transfer and the Sessions Court to re‑register, issue notices, and expedite the case. The judge also instructed the parties to cooperate for early disposal. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2011 and any interim applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

  • The appropriate forum for the criminal proceedings under the facts of the case
  • Whether the proceedings should be transferred to a Sessions Court having jurisdiction

Subjects

  • jurisdiction
  • transfer of proceedings
  • criminal appellate jurisdiction
  • sessions court
  • case management

Judgment

                                                       5-APEAL-76-2011 (CR).docx


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      CR. APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2011

A. Rajak Abbas Shaikh                               … Appellant
                     Versus
Shabuddin Matin Shaikh And Anr.                     … Respondents


                                ——————
None for the Appellant.
Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Onkar Bajaj, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
                                 ——————

                                 Coram :    ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                                 Date :     17th September 2026.

PER COURT :


1.      When this matter is called out, neither the Appellant nor the Advocate

for the Appellant are present physically or through V. C. mode. Mr. Onkar

Bajaj, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, is present.


2.      Mr. Onkar Bajaj, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. N.
B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent – State, by referring to the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A.
Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 , submits that
these proceedings would now lay before the Sessions Court having
jurisdiction. They therefore submit that these proceedings be transferred to
the Sessions Court having jurisdiction.


Arjun                               1
                                                                                  5-APEAL-76-2011 (CR).docx


                     3.      In view of the above, the following order is passed :-

                                (i)       The present proceedings be transferred to the
                                Sessions Court, having jurisdiction;

                                (ii)      The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to take
                                appropriate steps for transferring these proceedings to the
                                Sessions Court, having jurisdiction;

                                (iii)     The Sessions Court, to which these proceedings
                                would be transferred or assigned, after re-registration of the
                                same, shall issue notice to the parties to the said
                                proceedings and thereafter proceed with the matter on its
                                own merits and in accordance with law.

                                (iv)      Considering the proceedings which are now being
                                transferred have been pending for some time, the Sessions
                                Court to which these proceedings would be assigned is
                                requested    to    make   an    endeavour    to    expedite    the
                                proceedings. Parties shall cooperate in the early disposal of
                                the proceedings.

                     4.      Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2011 is disposed of.

                     5.      Interim Application, if any, is also disposed of.




                                                                    [ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]




        Digitally
        signed by
        ARJUN
ARJUN   KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE        Arjun                                  2
RODGE   Date:
        2026.09.21
        10:36:30
        +0530


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.