- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1509 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1509 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1509 OF 2008 Shashikant Vanmalidas Vaghela ...Petitioner vs. Dr.Vidya Rokade & another ...Respondents Mr.Pankaj Das for the petitioner Mr.D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 29,2008 : JULY 29,2008 : JULY 29,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first prayer in this application is for quashing the proceeding filed by the first Respondent under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to the said Act of 2005). 2. The first Respondent has invoked section 12 by filing the proceeding. The contention is that the provisions of the said Act of 2005 are not at all applicable as the incidents forming part of the allegations in the complaint filed by the first Respondent have taken place outside India. It is contended that the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Satara has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter. The second submission is that the petitioner is unable to attend the court at Satara as there is a threat to his life. It is submitted that it is impossible for the petitioner to enter the District Satara. Today, the learned - 2 - counsel for the petitioner has tendered a compilation of documents in support of this contention. Therefore, prayer in the alternative is for transfer of the case pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Satara to any other court except to the Courts in Districts Pune, Kolhapur and Sangli. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the averments made in the petition as well as the documents forming part of the compilation tendered today. 4. The issue regarding maintainability of the proceeding under the said Act of 2005 as well as the jurisdiction of the learned Judge can be raised by the petitioner while defending the proceedings filed by the first Respondent. For that purpose, this Petition need not be entertained. 5. In so far as the prayer for transfer is concerned, the petitioner has never even attempted to appear before the learned Judge though he is represented by an Advocate. On the basis of the material placed on record today, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that it is impossible for the petitioner to enter District Satara for the purpose of attending the court of the learned Magistrate. - 3 - 6. The petitioner can always apply for grant of exemption from personal appearance. If the petitioner wants to visit Satara for attending the court proceeding and he has any genuine threat, he can always apply to the police authorities for grant of necessary police protection. No case is made out as of today to transfer the proceeding. 7. Hence, the petition is rejected. 7. All contentions raised by the petitioner in this petition are expressly kept open which can be agitated by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE