KAMALKISHOR LAXMINARAYAN CHOUDHARY AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:24707
                                                   (1)                  1criwp790.10.odt




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          1 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 790 OF 2010
                     KAMALKISHOR LAXMINARAYAN CHOUDHARY AND ORS
                                                       ….Petitioners
                                       VERSUS

                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                                            …..Respondents


                Mr. Satyajit Bora, Advocate for the Petitioners
                Mr. S. N. Morampalle, APP for the respondents/State
                Mr. A. D. Gawale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

                                                   CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                                      DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026


                PER COURT :

                1.            Heard the learned Advocate for the parties and perused

                the record.

                2.            It is pertinent to note that by order dated 14-09-2010, this

                Court granted ‘Rule’ and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause-D.

                3.            The Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 09-

                08-2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Misc.

                Criminal Application No. 108/2010, thereby allowed the Application

                filed by Respondent No. 2/original complainant for transferring the

                Regular Criminal Case No. 105/2001 from the Court of Judicial

                Magistrate First Class, Muktainagar, to the Court of Judicial

                                                                                     1 of 4
                                    (2)              1criwp790.10.odt




Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal.

4.          The learned Sessions Judge in the order observed that the

respondent No. 2 had apprehension that the trial would not be fair. He

further apprehends that the prosecution's evidence might be abruptly

closed. The learned Magistrate was not recording the evidence

properly and was seeking clarification from the witnesses in the

matter. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order,

allowed the Application and transferred the proceedings from the

learned JMFC, Muktaingar, to the learned JMFC, Bhusawal.

5.          Learned Advocate         for   the Appellant    vehemently

contended that the matter was a part-heard. Therefore, it would not be

proper on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to transfer the part-

heard matter to another Court. Similarly, he contended that the learned

Sessions Judge has not applied his mind and has erred in passing the

impugned order. The transfer of the matter from one Court to another

would prejudice the applicants. Another court has no jurisdiction to try

and entertain the same; hence, he urged that the impugned order be set

aside.

6.          As against the learned Advocate for the Respondent, who

does not dispute the contention of the learned Advocate for the

Applicant and consented to setting aside the impugned order.


                                                                  2 of 4
                                   (3)                1criwp790.10.odt




7.           Having considered the no objection of the learned

Advocate for the respondent and the facts of the case, it would be

appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order. Apart from

that, it appears that, since 2010, the matter has been stayed by order of

this Court. Also, the Judge against whom the allegation was made has

already transferred, and a new Judge is conducting the trial. Hence, in

my view, it would not be appropriate to transfer the matter from the

Court that is competent to try and entertain the matter.

8.           Moreover, the matter is a part heard. Therefore, it would

not be appropriate to transfer the part-heard matter to another Court.

The learned Sessions Judge, on the assumption and presumption that

the learned Magistrate would abruptly close the prosecution evidence,

erred in observing that the learned Magistrate did not conduct a fair

trial. In fact, the said findings appear to be without any basis or

material on record. Thus, the order passed on the assumption and

presumption cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. That being so,

considering the above discussion and no objection of the learned

Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, I deem it appropriate to quash and

set aside the impugned order dated 09-08-2010 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 108/2010.




                                                                   3 of 4
                                      (4)                1criwp790.10.odt




9.               Consequently, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set

aside.

10.              Needless to clarify that the matter has been pending since

2001 before the learned Magistrate, as such, the learned Magistrate is

directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible within a period of

four months from the receipt of a copy of this order. The learned

Magistrate shall hold the trial once or twice a week and ensure the

progress on each date.

11.              Inform the concerned Court.

12.              Rule is made absolute in the above terms . No order as to

cost. The Petition is disposed of.



                                            [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]
VishalK/1criwp790.10.odt




                                                                      4 of 4