The court may allow the transfer of a case under Section 12 of the PWDV Act when it deems it necessary in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The petitioner herein has filed the instant revisional application praying for transfer of Misc. Case No. 92 of 2019 under Section 12 of the PWDV Act from the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, at Ghatal to the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.

2. The petitioner/wife’s address in the cause title is given as:

Police Station Daspur, District Paschim Medinipur. The address of the opposite party/husband is Shantipur (Dakshin Para), Post Office - Mecheda, Police Station- Kolaghat, District Purba Medinipur-721137.

3. In spite of due service, there is no representation on behalf of the opposite party.

4. The Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 534-536 of 2019, on 16th October, 2020, held:

“17. In Captain Amrinder Singh vs. Prakash Singh Badal and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 260 Justice P. Sathasivam, as he then was, speaking for the three judge Bench, on the issue of transfer of criminal cases, observed as follows:

“48. The analysis of all the materials, the transfer of the case as sought for, at this stage, is not only against the interest of prosecution but also against the interest of the other accused persons, the prosecution witnesses and the convenience of all concerned in the matter.

*** *** ***

51. We have already pointed out that a mere allegation that there is an apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case alone does not suffice. Considering the totality of all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that in a secular, democratic Government, governed by the rule of law, the State of Punjab is responsible for ensuring free, fair and impartial trial to the accused, notwithstanding the nature of the accusations made against them.

In the case on hand, the apprehension entertained by the petitioners cannot be construed as reasonable one and the case cannot be transferred on a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done.”

18. Let us now examine another precedent on transfer of criminal cases. In Nahar Singh Yadav and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 307 Justice D.K. Jain writing for the three Judge Bench discussed the scope of transfer under Section 406 Cr.P.C. in the following terms:

“22. It is, however, the trite law that power under Section 406 Cr.P.C. has to be construed strictly and is to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. It needs little emphasis that a prayer for transfer should be allowed only when there is a well-substantiated apprehension that justice will not be dispensed impartially, objectively and without any bias. In the absence of any material demonstrating such apprehension, this Court will not entertain application for transfer of a trial, as any transfer of trial from one State to another implicitly reflects upon the credibility of not only the entire State judiciary but also the prosecuting agency, which would include the Public Prosecutors as well.”

19. On the same line is the decision in Harita Sunil Parab vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 358 where Justice Navin Sinha, enunciated the law on transfer jurisdiction in the following terms:

“8. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. No universal or hard- and-fast rule can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition, which will always have to be decided on the facts of each case. Convenience of a party may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot override all other considerations such as the availability of witnesses exclusively at the original place, making it virtually impossible to continue with the trial at the place of transfer, and progress of which would naturally be impeded for that reason at the transferred place of trial. The convenience of the parties does not mean the convenience of the petitioner alone who appro