IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3988 OF 2010 [FOR TRANSFER] Smt. Priyankar Mansukhlal Shah .... Applicant V/S. Shri. Vijay Arun Patil & anr. .... Respondent Mr. Rameshwar Gite, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Sachin Chavan h/f. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the State-respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 5th August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This application is filed by respondent no.1 for transfer of Criminal Case No. 502 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahada, District-Nandurbar to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nasik. The transfer is sought on four grounds. Firstly, that respondent no.1 is a regular resident of Nasik and therefore filed all proceedings at Shahada was not correct. Secondly, that the proceedings have been filed at Shahada only with a purpose of harassing the applicant. Thirdly, that the applicant being a lady it will be convenient for her to attend to the Court at Nasik she being a resident of Nasik. Forthly, that there are already proceedings between the parties pending in the Courts at Nasik. 2. Mr. Gite, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there are in all three proceedings pending between the parties in the Court of Nasik. The first proceeding is C.C. No.5890 of 2009 filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act on 15th September, 2009. It is at the fag end of the trial. The second proceeding is FIR No. 288/2011 dated 29th June, 2011 filed under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. It is filed against the applicant and two more persons. The third proceedings are chapter proceedings initiated against the applicant in which she has approached the District Court, Nashik to challenge the orders passed against her. Pendency of these proceedings can have no relevance to the present application. As regards the argument of special convenience of the applicant as a lady, she admittedly being a businesswoman, no special concession is required to be given in the absence of specific case made out therefor. As far as the proceedings sought to be transferred i.e. C.C. No. 502 of 2010 is concerned, paragraph-7 of the complaint shows that the cheque had been dishonoured at Shahada and that is how the complaint came to be filed in that Court. Considering the facts of the case, I find no merits in either of the contentions raised by the applicant. Hence, the application for transfer is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]