(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 2026:BHC-AUG:24707 (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