mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2009 Mr.Kiran Guru Mahadik ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Amrendra Mishra for applicant. Mr. S.N. Gawade APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 4th November 2009 P.C. 1. This application is made by the petitioner for quashing criminal proceedings in R.C. No.51 of 2008. In the alternative, a prayer is made for transfer of the proceedings in R.C. No.511 of 2008 in the Court of JMFC, Chiplun to the Court of CJM, Thane for being tried along with Criminal Case no.144 of 2008. 2. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the prayer for quashing but only prayed for transfe of the case for trial. 3. M/s.U.A. Travels Pvt. Ltd, a Company, floated a scheme known as "Investors Vehicle Scheme. It is not necessary to set out the details of the scheme. Suffice it to say different investors were lured to invest money in the scheme. The scheme is alleged to be fraudulent and investors are alleged to be duped of the money invested by them. The applicant is alleged to be a conspirator and to have induced investors to invest. The investors in the company are spread all over Maharashtra. One of the investors from Thane, on being aware of the fraud, filed a FIR in the Thane Police station which was subsequently transferred to Economic Offences Wing of the Police. One other investor who is from Chiplun, also on being aware of the fraud filed a separate FIR about he being cheated. The crime has been registered and the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court of JMFC at Chiplun. The applicant now prays that the complaint at Chiplun be transferred for being tried at CJM at Thane. It is worthy to note that the complainant who is likely to suffer inconvenience by the transfer is not made a party to the application. In my view, that is one of the factor to be taken into consideration for rejecting the application. 3. It is not the case that the investor in Thane and the investor in Chiplun were simultaneously deceived in the same occurence. In fact, they did not know each other. They were deceived at different times. May be the method adopted for deceiving them was similar but that is no ground for transfer of the case from Chiplun to Thane. It would cause great prejudice to the complainant at Chiplun to go to Thane every time as a witness. In my view, sufficient ground is not made out for the transfer of the case from JMFC at Chiplun to CJM at Thane merely because the Court of CJM at Thane is trying the applicant for another similar offence alleged to be committed by the applicant. 4. For these reasons, the application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)