Final Order 1

Order Details: Order below Ex-1
Pdf Text: 1 Case No.106/TA/2023.
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ESPLANADE, MUMBAI.
(Presiding Officer – M. R. A. Shaikh)
Transfer Application No.106/TA/2023
(CNR No.MHMM11-009291-2023)
Pankaj Dinkar Parkar
Aged 52 Years, Occ.: Business.
Parkar Niwas, Kittridge Road, Sasson Dock, Opp.
Corporation Bank, Colaba, Mumbai-400005. ….Applicant.
V/s.
1. Anil Chitroda
Aged 56 approx, Occ.: Business.
334/342, S.V.P. Road, Bhanupur, (Manchharam)
Building, 5th Floor, Opp. Lilavati School, Charni
Road (E), Mumbai-400004.
2. State of Maharashtra
Through Public Prosecutor. ….Respondents.
Appearance :-
For Applicant :- Learned Adv. Kirti Purohit/Mehul Thakker.
For Respondent :- Learned Adv. Gaurav Gokhale/
Learned Adv. Ankita Pandey.
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
(Delivered on 06.04.2024)
The Applicant has filed application under Section 410 of
Cr.P.C. for transfer the Case No.5238/SS/2015 pending before the
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai to some
other Court.
2. It is averred in the application that, the Learned Magistrate
14th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai has not given fair opportunity to the
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Case No.106/TA/2023.
accused in the trial. It is stated that, the applicant has filed application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. At that time, the Court came to know that,
one judgment which was relied upon the complainant in reply was
never filed with the Court. The said facts stated by the applicant to the
Court, the Court orally directed to the Complainant’s Advocate give the
copy of judgment to the Accused as he the Court already rejected the
application.
3. It is averred in the application that, Learned Magistrate was
appearing prejudice against the applicant/Original Accused and
realizing unfairness conduct on his part and not conducting the matter
fairly. Therefore, applicant/Original Accused strongly feels that, he will
not get justice from the present Learned Court therefore, having no
option, the applicant/Original Accused is compelled to approach this
Court for transfer the aforesaid cases to any other Court.
4. Respondent filed her reply at Exh.5 and strongly opposed
the application. She has categorically explained the work of the Court in
her reply. It is contended that, it is very much incorrect to say that, the
Learned 14th Court Judge lost his focus upon the matter and proceeding
and constitution rights of the accused. Nevertheless, at first glance, it
appears that, the accused is not leave any chance or any opportunity to
prolong the legal proceedings. I assert that if the applicant genuinely
feels aggrieved by the Court’s order, they have the right to challenge it
before the appropriate forum instead of resorting to filing this
seemingly frivolous application. The Learned Magistrate had given
sufficient opportunities to the applicant a fair trial and the Court is not
bias against the applicant. Hence, the application filed by the applicant
is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Case No.106/TA/2023.
5. Heard Learned Counsels for both the parties at length.
6. The Learned Counsel for applicant vehemently argued that,
the Court is not conducted trial fairly and impartially. The Court has not
given fair opportunities to the applicant by not supplying the copy of
judgment. The applicant feels that, he will not get justice from the
Court therefore, matter may kindly transfer to another Court.
7. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel for respondent
submitted that, the Learned Magistrate has given sufficient
opportunities to the applicant on every stage. The Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate has recorded statement of accused under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. The matter is on the flag end. The applicant has filed present
application only with intention to prolong the trial before the Learned
Metropolitan Magistrate by hook and crook. The matter also very old of
the year of 2015. Therefore, there is no sufficient and reasonable
ground to transfer the case to another Court. Hence, application may
kindly be rejected.
8. Perused the application, reply and documents. It appears
that, the Learned Magistrate has given various opportunities to the
applicant. It appears that, application filed by the applicant under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is rejected by the Learned Magistrate by reasoned
order. It appears that, the applicant aggrieved from the order passed by
the Learned Magistrate. It appears that, the Learned Magistrate passed
the order on the merit. Whatever grievances against the order the
applicant has every right to challenge the said order before the
appropriate Court and there is no ground of transfer the matter from
one Court to another.
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Case No.106/TA/2023.
9. Admittedly, matter is very old of the year 2015 and now
came to on the final stage. It appears that, the Learned Magistrate has
given every opportunities to the applicant in the trial, mere rejection of
application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. does not means that, Court is
bias and not given fair opportunity to the applicant in the trial. It
appears that, applicant filed the present application only with the
intention to prolong the trial and nothing more.
10. It is pertinent to note that, it is the duty of applicant to
establish or to bring sufficient material on record to show that, the
Learned Magistrate is bias against him or not conducting the fair trial.
However, in the present matter there is no sufficient material to show
that, the Learned Magistrate is not imparting justice fairly and
impartially. Mere pleading that, applicant feels that, he will not get
justice from the present Learned Magistrate is not sufficient to transfer
the case to another Learned Magistrate. If the matter is transferred on
bare pleading, it will go wrong message to the society.
11. It appears that, the Court is given the opportunities to the
both parties in the interest of justice. It clearly shows that, Court is not
favouring any of the parties. On the contrary, Court has given
opportunities to both parties on equal footing. It doesn't mean that,
Court is bias against the applicant and Learned Magistrate is doing his
duty with full devotion and trying to dispose of the application within
time framework given by law. Therefore, in my view there are no
sufficient and reasonable grounds to transfer the matter to any other
Court. Under such circumstances, in my view, the present application is
not maintainable and liable to reject. Hence, I proceed to pass the
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Case No.106/TA/2023.
following order :-
ORDER
Transfer Application No.106/TA/2023 is rejected.
(M. R. A. Shaikh)
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Date:- 06.04.2024. Esplanade, Mumbai.
SBA/-
-- 5 of 5 --