IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1342 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1342 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1342 OF 2007 Anil Ramsingh Walsepatil, Applicant Vs Ajay Madhukar Pimparkar and ors. Respondents Mr J.B.Kocheta, for the applicant. Mr. P.G.Sardesai i/b I.M.Khairdi, for respondent nos 1 and 2. Mr K.V.Saste, APP for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 13/10/2008 DATE : 13/10/2008 DATE : 13/10/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Kocheta, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Saste, learned APP, for the State and Mr Sardesai, learned counsel for respondent nos 1 and 2. 2. By this application, the applicant has prayed for transfer of S.T.C No.2206 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned IInd Jt.JMFC, Barsi to the file of the larned JMFC,AC Court, Pune. The transfer is sought only on the ground that the complaint filed by the applicant before JMFC, pune, in which the learned Magistrate had issued process on 20.2.2005, is pending at Pune while the complaint filed by respondent no.1 is pending at Barshi, Dist.Solapur, and both these cases are arising from the same transaction. In support, Mr Kocheta placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs. State of Mahaashtra, 2007 CRI. L.J. 115 and Ramanand Shrikrishan Sharma Vs Kailasnath Ramraj Tripathi 2006 (6) BOM.C.R 507. I have perused both the Judgments. I am not impressed with the submissions advanced by Mr Kocheta, learned counsel for the applicant. The case at Barsi is under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,while the case pending at Pune is mainly under section 420 of IPC filed by the applicant. It appears that respondent no.1 had issued notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 6.7.2004 and the applicant filed his complaint at Pune on 23.7.2004. From the dates mentioned above, it is clear that the case at Pune was filed only as a counterblast to the respondent’s complaint. The applicant could have taken all the defences in 138 proceedings including the one on which he filed complaint at Pune. It is clear from the contents of both the complaints and the application for transfer, that the applicant did so with a view to harass respondent no.1 and to delay the 138 proceedings. Moreover, this is also evident from the fact that the case at Barsi was filed in August,2004, whereas the application seeking transfer has been filed by the present applicant in April, 2007. Mr Kocheta is not in a position to state what is the stage of the trial at both the places. The reliance placed on the Judgments by Mr Kotecha is misplaced and they do not apply to the facts of the present case. Looking to the conduct of the applicant and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, no case for transfer, as prayed, is made out by the applicant and the application deserves to be rejected. Hence, the application is rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)