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.1404 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1404 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1404 OF 2008. Mrs. Uma Ashutosh Chitale. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Anilkumar Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH JULY,2008. : 25TH JULY,2008. : 25TH JULY,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the first respondent State. The petitioner lodged F.I.R. alleging commission of offence under section 498A against the second to fourth respondents. Initially, criminal application no.1863/2007 was filed by the applicant in this Court where a prayer was made for transfer of the criminal case from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 13th Court, Thane to a Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ahmednagar. The said application was rejected by this Court by order dated 2nd August 2007. However, this Court observed that in case the petitioner prefers to make a similar application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Thane, for assigning the case to any other Judicial Magistrate, First - 2 - Class at Thane, such application shall be considered on its own merits. 2. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner for transfer before the learned Sessions Judge. In the said application, it was stated that the police had obtained permission from the Court for carrying out further investigation. In the application, it is stated that the case was fixed on 15th November 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 13th Court at Thane. In presence of a prosecution witness Mrunal Naik , the learned Judge stated that the case will be decided within 2-3 days. It is stated in the application on 6th January 2007 when the case was fixed before the Trial Judge, on the very day, the investigating officer had called witnesses to record their further statements and the concerned public prosecutor was made aware of the said fact. It is alleged that two wittiness namely Mrunal Naik and Milind Naik were present in the Court on 6th January 2007. The specific allegation is that though the said witnesses were present, the learned Judge asked the prosecutor to submit an application for issuing a warrant to the said witnesses and accordingly, the learned Judge passed an order issuing warrant. The allegation in short is that - 3 - though the permission has been granted to carry out further investigation, before submission of additional charge sheet the learned Judge is insisting on proceeding with the hearing of the case. It is alleged that the learned Judge is biased against the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on application dated 6th January 2007 made by the Public Prosecutor and order passed thereon. It is contended that the manner in which the application has been written by the public prosecutor shows that it was the learned Judge who insisted on the public prosecutor filing such application. 3. It must be stated here that while rejecting the said application for transfer by passing the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has noted that the petitioner had made similar allegations in the transfer application filed in this Court. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the allegations made against the learned Judge and declined to pass the order. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a liberty was granted by this Court to file an application for transfer before the Sessions Court and accordingly, the application - 4 - was filed. He submitted that when the witnesses had appeared on the same day before the investigating officer for recording the further statements, the concerned prosecutor ought to have brought the said fact to the notice of the learned Judge. He submitted that the learned Judge is in a hurry to commence the hearing though further investigation was not completed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. Taking the averments made by the petitioner as it is, it is not possible to accept the allegations of bias made against the learned Judge. It is true that as further investigation was permitted, the learned Judge ought to have granted reasonable opportunity to the police to file additional charge sheet. Looking to the application made by the prosecutor for issuing warrants against the witnesses, at the highest, what can be said is the learned Trial Judge has taken a harsh view of the matter. It is not possible to accept the contention that the learned Judge forced the prosecutor to apply for issuing warrants against the witnesses. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application for the transfer on the ground that the - 5 - allegations of bias are not substantiated. It is not possible to find fault with the said finding. At the same time, it must be observed that if there is already an order permitting further investigation to be carried out, the learned Judged is bound to grant a reasonable time to file additional charge sheet. If there is already an order for carrying out the further investigation which is in progress, no purpose will be served by hurriedly recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. These are the aspects which the learned Trial Judge is bound to consider. 7. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is not entertained and the same is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]