JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. This Criminal Application for transfer of a private Criminal Complaint Case No. 629/2001 from the file of Bhusawal Court, District Jalgaon to the Court at Tiroda, District Bhandara, under section 407 read with sections 26, 177, 186, 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the applicants, claiming the relief that the order dated 17-7-2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal, directing issue of process under section 504 read with 34 of I.P.C. against the applicants, be quashed and set aside, being without jurisdiction, perverse, illegal and arbitrary, and/or to transfer the said criminal proceeding as mentioned above. 3. The factual matrix is as under: It is the case of the applicants that the marriage of the applicant No. 1 was solemnized with one Vinayak Somaji Sarve, who is the younger brother of the respondent No. 2. She joined her husband at his house at Amgaon (Dighori) soon after the marriage. The applicant No. 1 was being ill-treated in the matrimonial home and her husband indulged in physical violence with her. Her husband used to ask her to bring money from her parents for purchasing vehicle and grocery articles. It is the further case of the applicants that in the month of October 1997, a demand of Rs. 2,000/- was fulfilled. In the month of February, 1998, she conceived pregnancy. Her husband met with an accident on 1-6-1998. On 7-6-1998, her parents had come to see her husband, but they were abused and she disclosed that her husband and mother-in-law were insisting for abortion, for which, she refused. On 8-6-1998, her mother-in-law forcibly administered her some medicines for abortion with the help of one village midwife due to which she suffered abortion. On 9-6-1998, her brothers had come to see her and found that her condition was critical due to abortion and the husband and his family members asked them to take her to her parent's house. There was a danger to her life in the matrimonial house. On 11-6-1998, she lodged a report at Police Station, Bhandara. On 29-6-1998, Bhandara Police have charge-sheeted the husband and mother-in-law of the applicant No. 1, for the offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C., under Crime No. 119/1998. There was a danger to her life in the matrimonial house. On 11-6-1998, she lodged a report at Police Station, Bhandara. On 29-6-1998, Bhandara Police have charge-sheeted the husband and mother-in-law of the applicant No. 1, for the offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C., under Crime No. 119/1998. On 27-2-2001, the applicant No. 1 filed an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for short) for grant of maintenance. That application was allowed and maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month was granted to her. In the month of November/December 1999, the husband, mother-in-law and respondents were not inclined to return the "Stree Dhan" and, therefore, she had filed an Criminal Case No. 7/2000 against the respondents and two others under sections 407, 109, 120 read with 34 of I.P.C. and the proceedings are pending before the J.M.F.C., Tiroda. On 25th June, 1998, some news item was published in local newspaper, namely Lokmat as regards the harassment and ill-treatment meted out to the applicant No. 1 by her husband and mother-in-law. 4. It is contended that the applicants had never gone to Bhusawal and they have not abused or threatened the respondents at any time or any place. However, the respondent No. 1 lodged a false complaint case being private Criminal Case No. 629/2001 on 20th April, 2001 against the applicants for the offences punishable under sections 499, 500, 504, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. at Bhusawal. The respondent No. 2 is in the service of Police Department. In pursuance of the said Complaint Case No. 629/2001, the learned J.M.F.C., Bhusawal, on 17-7-2001, issued process under sections 504 read with 34 of I.P.C. against the applicants. 5. It is further contended that the applicants are unable to attend the Court at Bhusawal, as it is not convenient for them, nor they can afford to go to Bhusawal, because of their poor financial condition as they are agricultural labourers. It is contended that as the complainant did not mention in the complaint that the abuses and threats were given at Bhusawal and, therefore, the Court at Bhusawal has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, under section 177 of the Code. It is further contended that the trial Court did not follow the mandatory provisions of section 191 of the Code. It is further contended that the trial Court did not follow the mandatory provisions of section 191 of the Code. In such circumstances, it is contended that the said Criminal Proceedings may be transferred from Bhusawal Court to the Court at Tiroda or that the order of issuance of process against the applicants may be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel for the applicants further contended that this Court can very entertain and try the present application and in support of his submission, he relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Nitin Industrial Associates, Khamgaon v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, reported in 1986(3) Bom.C.R. 174 . He also contended that as per Clause 29 of Appendix B of the Amended Letters Patent of the High Court, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present application. He pointed out that this Court can exercise powers under section 407(c) of the Code to transfer the said private criminal complaint. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that admittedly, the complaint under section 498-A of I.P.C. is pending before the J.M.F.C., Tiroda and the criminal complaint under sections 499, 500, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C. is pending before the J.M.F.C., Bhusawal. He contended that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to transfer the said private criminal complaint to Tiroda Court and only the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, has got jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Criminal Application for transfer. In support of his submissions, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India others)2, reported in 2000(8) Scale 455 . He pointed out that as per section 41 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, and as per the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter I, the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, alone will have a jurisdiction to entertain such petition. 7. I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for both the sides. It may be useful to reproduce Rule 41 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, which contemplates that : "41. 7. I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for both the sides. It may be useful to reproduce Rule 41 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, which contemplates that : "41. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 51 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, such Judges of the High Court at Bombay, being not less than three in number, as the Chief Justice may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Nagpur in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Buldana, Akola, Amravati, Yeotmal, Wardha, Nagpur, Bhandara, Chanda and Rajura; Provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case arising in any such district shall be heard at Bombay." 8. The Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India (cited supra) in para No. 13 held that : "A writ case when listed before a Judge for hearing as per roster may be heard or refused to be heard by him depending on his opinion formed on the judicial side on the question whether the cause of action in that case arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench seat or not. Whether or not a case arises in a district lying within the jurisdiction of Bench seat is a question to be decided judicially, in case to case, and not by the administratively order of the Chief Justice made generally." 9. Section 178 of the Code lays down that: "178. Place of inquiry or trial, (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or; (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area." As per this provision, it is obvious that the Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is committed, will have jurisdiction to try the offences committed within such local areas. 10. 10. The learned Counsel for the applicants further contended that in view of section 177, since it has not been mentioned in the complaint in question as to whether the offences punishable under sections 504, 506, read with section 34, have been committed, at Bhusawal, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The learned Counsel for the applicants relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Industrial Associates, Khamgaon (cited supra), wherein, in para Nos. 4 and 6, it has been observed thus: "Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides that within the State the High Court's jurisdiction is co-terminus with the territories of the State while Clause (2) thereof envisages the issue of writs beyond the High Court's territorial jurisdiction provided that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court concerned. Where the tender notice was issued in Bombay and the Government resolution was also passed at Bombay, they were in the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and by reason of Article 226 Clause (1), the Bench at Nagpur will clearly have jurisdiction. The provisions of section 41 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960 read with Rule 1 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, cannot abridge the writ jurisdiction. No enactment passed by the Parliament and/or by the State Legislature can trench upon the jurisdiction concerned on the High Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Section 41 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960 and the provisions of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 are designed to meet administrative requirements and administrative concenivence. Hence it is not that every petition under Article 226 which is presented to the Bench at Nagpur that needs to be entertained and regard must be had to these two provisions in the filing of writ petitions so that the petitions can be dealt with by an appropriate Bench. Ordinarily Court is extremely slow in entertaining such matters which are required to be entertained and tried at Bombay, but when the matter has already been admitted as back as on 25-9-1984 the Bench decided to hear and decided the matter while sitting at Nagpur". 11. Ordinarily Court is extremely slow in entertaining such matters which are required to be entertained and tried at Bombay, but when the matter has already been admitted as back as on 25-9-1984 the Bench decided to hear and decided the matter while sitting at Nagpur". 11. It is true that as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (cited supra), : "A writ case when listed before a Judge for hearing as per roster may be heard or refused to be heard by him depending on his opinion formed on the judicial side on the question whether the cause of action in that case arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench seat or not. Whether or not a case arises in a district lying within the jurisdiction of Bench seat is a question to be decided judicially, in case to case, and not by the administrative order of the Chief Justice made generally." 12. In the present case, it is not disputed that the private criminal complaint being Regular Criminal Case No. 629/2001, has been instituted by the respondents in the Court at Bhusawal and the specified averments are made in the complaint that: ".......All the accused had threatened to kill the complainant and had abused saying : ^^lkyh fNUuky rq>s ugh NksMaqxh rsjk irh ih-,l-vk; gS rks esjk dqN ugh fcxkM ldrk o HkMos dks Hkh ns[k yqaxh^^ (the abuses in filthy language) 13. There were other averments in the complaint also alleging that the accused persons had committed offences punishable under sections 499, 500, 504, 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the contents of the complaint and the material placed before him, has passed an order on 17-7-2001 in these words : "Heard Advocate Shri Nawab. Perused the documents. Admittedly, offence is registered against the complainant and her husband on the complaint filed by the accused No. 1. News of accused is published in newspaper. There is no evidence that the said news is published by accused. Mere news in paper for registering offence is not crime under section 499 of Indian Penal Code. Issue process against accused Nos. 1 to 3 under section 504 read with section 34 of the I.P.C." 14. News of accused is published in newspaper. There is no evidence that the said news is published by accused. Mere news in paper for registering offence is not crime under section 499 of Indian Penal Code. Issue process against accused Nos. 1 to 3 under section 504 read with section 34 of the I.P.C." 14. A bare perusal of the averments of the complainant would reveal that the complainant did not make out specifically as to at what place the accused persons had threatened them to kill and hurled the aforesaid filthy abuses and in such circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that this Court cannot entertain this application. Day, date, time and place of alleged commission of the crime under section 504 read with section 34 of I.P.C. is conspicuously absent in the private criminal complaint. Since it has not been made clear by the complainant in the complaint as to in whose territorial jurisdiction, the offences in question are alleged to have been committed, it is difficult to hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to transfer the said case from Bhusawal to Tiroda. 15. Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant No. 1 has filed the Criminal Case No. 119/1998 for the offences punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C., she has filed an application under section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance and she was granted the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month by the learned J.M.F.C. and that she had again filed a Criminal Case No. 7/2000, for the offence under section 406, 109, 120 read with section 34 of I.P.C., there is reason to believe that only for causing the harassment to the applicants the complainant in Criminal Case No. 629/2001 has omitted to mention in complaint in whose territorial jurisdiction the offences have been committed. 16. Sub-section (c) of section 407 of the Code contemplates as under: "407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals,---(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court--- (a) ................................. (b) ................................. 16. Sub-section (c) of section 407 of the Code contemplates as under: "407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals,---(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court--- (a) ................................. (b) ................................. (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice." Bare reading of this section show that the High Court's power can be invoked to transfer the case from one Court to another Court if it is expedient for the ends of justice and looking to the general convenience of the parties. 17. There is no material on record to show that in order to secure ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of law, it is necessary to quash and set aside the order of issue of process passed on 17-7-2001 by the trial Court. But since the private criminal complaint appears to be in the nature of counter blast to the various cases filed by the applicants and because the applicants would be put to a great harassment by asking them to attend the Court at Bhusawal, it is expedient for the ends of justice and looking to the convenience of parties, this Court can exercise the powers under section 407 of the Code directing transfer of the said case from Bhusawal Court, District Jalgaon to Court at Tiroda, District Bhandara. 18. In the result, the application is partly allowed. It is directed that the Private Criminal Case No. 629/2001 be transferred from the Court at Bhusawal District Jalgaon to the Court at Tiroda, District Bhandra for disposal in accordance with law. The criminal application accordingly stands disposed of. 19. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Application partly allowed. -----