Bombay High Court
BHAGYASHREE SANGHARATNA KASAREversusSANGHARATNA LAKSHMAN KASARE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court found no error or special circumstances justifying transfer and dismissed the application.
Summary
The applicant, Bhagyashree Kasare, filed an application under Section 171 of the Bombay Police Act seeking transfer of a Sessions trial (Case No.22/2025) from the Ambajogai Court in Beed to a Court in Pune, alleging that the FIR was improperly transferred by the Chikhli police to Ambajogai and that she has other related proceedings pending in Pune. The applicant’s counsel argued that the police erred in moving the FIR and that, as a woman, she could not effectively prosecute from Pune, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondents contended that the cause of action arose in Ambajogai, making the local court the proper forum, and that the police transfer was lawful. The Court noted that the Supreme Court decision does not mandate transfer merely for the informant’s convenience and that the applicant is not the prosecutrix; the case is being prosecuted by the State. It further observed that the police action was not challenged and that no special circumstances justified a transfer. Consequently, the application for transfer was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The legality of the police’s transfer of the FIR from Chikhli to Ambajogai and whether it constitutes an error warranting trial transfer under Section 171 of the Bombay Police Act.
- Whether the convenience of the informant and parallel proceedings in Pune justify transferring the criminal trial to a different jurisdiction.
- The applicability of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh to the present request for jurisdictional transfer.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Police Act — s. 144, 171
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 498A
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Subjects
- criminal case transfer
- jurisdiction
- FIR transfer
- Section 171
- Bombay Police Act
- domestic violence
- Section 498A
- Supreme Court precedent
- convenience of parties
Judgment
-1-
criappln1186.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
958 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1186 OF 2026
Bhagyashree Sangharatna Kasare ….Applicant
VERSUS
Sangharatna Lakshman Kasare & others …..Respondents
Mr. M. D. Shinde, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State.
Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for Respondent Nos. to 5.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026.
PER COURT :
1. This application under Section 171 of BNSS seeks transfer of
Sessions Case No.22/2025 from Sessions Court, Ambajogai, District
Beed to any competent Court in Pune district.
2. Applicant/informant lodged First Information Report bearing
No. 004/2024 dated 16.10.2024 with Chikhli Police Station, District
Pimpri-Chinchwad. This First Information Report came to be
transferred to Ambajogai (Rural) police station which came to be
registered as Crime No. 308/2024. The said police station conducted
investigation and filed charge-sheet before the competent Court at
Ambajogai District Beed.
-2-
criappln1186.26.odt
3. Informant seeks transfer of this proceeding to the Court at
Pune on the ground that the other proceedings filed by her under
Domestic Violence Act and Section 144 of BNSS are pending with the
competent Court at Pune.
4. Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that the Chikhli police
station committed error by transferring the First Information Report
to Ambajogai (Rural) police station. It is submitted that since the
informant was residing then within the jurisdiction of Pimpri-
Chinchwad Court, it was not open for the said police station to
transfer investigation to Ambajogai (Rural) police station. In order to
support his submissions, he placed reliance of judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1790, more particularly
observations in paragraph No. 16 of the judgment. He further claims
that the Applicant is a lady and she cannot prosecute the proceeding
by staying at Pune.
5. Learned Counsel for contesting Respondent opposed the said
contention by submitting that the cause of action for lodging First
-3-
criappln1186.26.odt
Information Report occurred at Ambajogai and as such registration of
crime at Ambajogai as well as investigation and filing of charge-sheet
is in accordance with law.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rupali Devi (supra) has
held that in case the wife desires to prefer the proceeding at the place
where she resides after leaving matrimonial home, such Court also
would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of
offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. This does not
mean that the proceeding from jurisdiction of appropriate Court
should be transferred as per the desire of the informant. Needless to
say that the informant is not prosecutrix of the said case and as such
for the purpose of recording her evidence she would be required to
remain present before the said Court.
7. Pertinently, the action of Chikhli police station in transferring
the First Information Report to Ambajogai (Rural) police station was
never taken exception to. Applicant permitted the investigation to be
carried out by the said police station. Pursuant to the said
investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the competent
Court at Ambajogai. As such, there is no error committed in
-4-
criappln1186.26.odt
investigating the said crime and taking cognizance of the same by the
competent Court. Convenience of the parties cannot become a sole
criteria for transfer of the proceeding. Needless to say that the Court
should be slow in transferring the proceeding from the Court of
competent jurisdiction. As this case being State case, it would be
prosecuted by Public Prosecutor and not by Applicant. Even if the
Applicant desires, she could assist prosecutor through her Advocate.
This Court, therefore, does not find any special / extra ordinary
circumstances to transfer the proceeding from the competent Court
and as such there is no justification for transfer of the proceeding
concerned.
8. As a result of above discussion, application stands dismissed.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
dyb
Checking your session…