1 (cri appln 1932 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1932 OF 2009 Pranali Prafulla Gotal ...Applicant Vs. Prafulla Bhiva Gotal and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Ms.Sonal V. Parab i/b. Rajeev Sawant & Associates for Applicant Smt.Daksha M. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr.D.R. More -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 25TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This is an application filed by the Original Complainant for transferring the case from the Khed Court to Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Mumbai. 3. The Applicant got married with the Respondent No.1 in Mumbai in the year 1997 and till the year 2005, the Applicant was residing in Mumbai at her matrimonial house. A complaint was filed by her at Khed in 2009 2 (cri appln 1932 of 2009) for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation is over. Chargesheet is filed. 4. In the complaint, she has alleged that she was ill-treated by the Respondent No.1-Accused and his family members. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is suffering from Tuberculosis and,therefore, it will not be possible for her to go to Khed to give evidence. It is also not possible for other three witnesses who are suffering from various ailments and, therefore, they would not be in a position to go to Khed to give evidence. Then it is submitted that the Respondent No.1 has threatened the Petitioner that if she comes to Khed to give evidence, she will have to face with dire consequences. It is further submitted that part of the cause of action had arisen at Mumbai since 2005, the Applicant was residing at Mumbai along with the Respondent No.1. It is also submitted that her 3 (cri appln 1932 of 2009) doctor had advised the Applicant not to travel on account of her ailment. It is then submitted that the Respondent No.1 has re-married and, therefore, it will be humiliated for her to go to Khed after his remarriage. It is further submitted that she does not have any place of residence or relatives at Khed. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the compliant is filed in the year 2009, the marriage took place in 1997. The Applicant was residing in Mumbai till 2005. She further submitted that even the parents of the Respondent No.1 are very old and, as such, it is difficult for them to come to Mumbai and give evidence. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.1 has never given any threats as alleged. 6. In my view, this is not a fit case for transferring the matter from Khed to Mumbai. The entire investigation was carried out by the 4 (cri appln 1932 of 2009) Investigating Officer at Khed and hence, all the investigating papers are with the said I.O. So far as the medical condition of the Applicant is concerned, the record pertains to the year of 2007 and, thereafter the recent medical papers are not annexed. Therefore, it is difficult to rely on the said medical papers for the purpose of ascertaining the medical condition. Secondly, so far as the threats which are allegedly given by the Respondent No.1 that can be taken care by directing the police to give proper protection to her when she goes to Khed to give evidence. 7. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for transferring the case from Khed to Mumbai. Hence, criminal application is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)