Bombay High Court
ABHIJIT JANARDAN KHARAT AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The application for transfer is dismissed for want of prosecution as it should have been filed before the Sessions Court under Section 447 of the BNSS.
Summary
The applicants sought a transfer of criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devgad, to the Court of the JMFC/Civil Judge Senior Division, Oros, both talukas within Sindhudurg District. The High Court noted that the applicants had repeatedly failed to appear, had not supplied required spare copies of the application, and that notice to one respondent was still pending. The court observed that under the proviso to sub‑clause (2) of Section 447 of the BNSS, such a transfer application should be made to the learned Sessions Court, not the High Court. It further inferred that the applicants were not interested in prosecuting the matter, given their continued absence. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for transfer of criminal proceedings under Section 447 of the BNSS
- Whether the applicants' failure to appear and supply required documents warrants dismissal for want of prosecution
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 447
Subjects
- transfer of criminal proceedings
- Section 447
- BNSS
- jurisdiction
- want of prosecution
- High Court
- Sessions Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:7809
6.APL.981.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 981 OF 2025
Abhijit Janardan Kharat and Others ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another ...Respondents
***
Ms. Ankita Chindage i/b Mr. Vishal Rankhambe, Advocate for the
Applicants.
Ms. Priyanka S. Rane, APP for Respondent – State.
***
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : AUGUST 20, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Mr. Chindage, learned counsel holding for Mr. Rankhambe,
learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, submits that Mr. Rankhambe has
given no objection and has returned the file to the Applicant.
2. It is pertinent to note that on the last date, none appeared for the
Applicant. Therefore, the following order was passed:
“1. None appears for the Applicants, either in the Court Hall or
through V.C. mode, when the matter is called out.
2. Perused the Application.
3. It appears that on 19th December, 2025, notice was issued to the
Respondents. However, the Applicants had not supplied a spare
copy of the Application; therefore, notice could not be issued to
Respondent No.2.
4. By order dated 19th January, 2026, this Court had categorically
directed the parties in the bunch of Writ Petitions to supply spare
copies within one week and, upon supply of the copies, to issue
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 2
6.APL.981.2025.odt
notice to the Respondents. Pursuant to the said order, notice was
issued to Respondent No.2; however, the same is still awaited.
5. Learned A.P.P. submitted that Devgad and Oros, both Talukas, are
located within the Sindhudurg District. Therefore, the Applicants
must file the Application before the learned Sessions Judge, not
before this Court.
6. It further appears that the Applicants are not interested in prosecuting
the matter.
7. List the Application on 20 th August, 2026 under the caption “For
Hearing/Dismissal”.
3. Today also, none appears for the Applicant either in the Court-
Hall or through V. C. mode. Perused the Application. It appears that the
Applicant is seeking transfer of the criminal proceedings pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devgad, to the Court of the learned
JMFC/Civil Judge Senior Division, Oros. Both the Talukas fall within the
Sessions Division of Sindhudurg District. In view of the proviso to sub-
clause (2) of Section 447 of the BNSS, the Applicant ought to have
approached the learned Sessions Court for such transfer.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the Application.
Moreover, the Applicant has remained absent even today, which indicates
that the Applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the
Application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…