1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION NO. 2293 OF 2009 Dr. Harshalata w/o Ravi Dhawale Vs. State of Maharashtra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders Mr. H.R. Dhumale, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.B. Yengal, A.G.P. for non-applicant. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 31st TH JULY, 2009. 1. The petitioner is facing Criminal Case No.56/2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is staying at Yavatmal and large number of witnesses are from Yavatmal. On that ground transfer is sought. It may be true that large number of witnesses are from Yavatmal. At the same time it will have to be noted that accused who is husband of the petitioner is resident of Saoner. In my view merely because the large number of witnesses hail from Yavatmal cannot be a ground to transfer the proceeding from Saoner to Yavatmal. 3. It was also sought to be argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in the Yavatmal Court certain proceedings i.e. Proceeding for seeking divorce, proceeding for complaint under Section 406 and suit for 2 recovery of marriage cancellation etc. are pending in the Yavatmal Court. My attention was brought to the fact that these proceedings are filed by the petitioner-wife. This was also one more ground to seek transfer. My attention was drawn to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case A.K.K. Nambiar and others v. District Supdt. of Police, Special Police Establishment, C.I A. II New Delhi reported in AIR 1972 SC 203 contends that if more number of cases are going on one establishment transfer would be good ground. So far as this observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has expressed view that cases of more or less, similar nature can be collected together in one Court. In the present case, the three cases which are referred are of different types and that cannot be a ground to call upon the husband-accused to go to Yavatmal and face the trial. Even otherwise, there is no other ground pressed for transfer. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere and grant a request. Hence the following order. Petition is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE pma.