ORDER :

1. Since common question of fact and law is arising and involved in both the petitions filed under Section 407 of the CrPC, these two transfer petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Respondent Smt. Swati Das is wife of petitioner No.1 Sushrut Das. Their marriage was solemnised on 3-7-2017 at Raigarh and immediately thereafter, dispute has arisen between them qua demand of dowry resulting into lodging of first information report by Smt. Swati Das against husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law which resulted in filing of charge-sheet before the criminal court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur being Criminal Case No.585/2019 under Crime No.15/2018 for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC which was taken cognizance of on 30-1-2019 and that is pending consideration. In the meantime, Smt. Swati Das filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur which was registered as MJC No.175/2018 and that is how both the cases (criminal case and application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005) are pending consideration before that Court.

3. Now, the husband and in-laws of Smt. Swati Das have preferred transfer petitions for transfer of both the cases to Bilaspur or Raigarh or to any other place, as they are finding it difficult to defend themselves in the court of JMFC, Raipur where the cases are pending because, they are residing at Raigarh. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents in both the transfer petitions.

4. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the transfer petitions, would submit that in order to hold a fair and impartial trial, transfer of both the cases is necessary to a court except where the cases were pending and also it will be more convenient to the petitioners, particularly petitioners No.2 & 3, who are aged about 62 years and 59 years, respectively, and as such, the transfer petitions be allowed and the cases be transferred to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Raigarh.

5. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant / private respondent herein, would submit that the offence is alleged to have been committed in the local jurisdiction of courts at Raipur as such, the court at Raipur has jurisdiction to try the cases by virtue of Section 177 of the CrPC and even by virtue of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 5 SCC 384, the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the IPC. He would further submit that the court is required to look into the general convenience of both the parties and as such, the transfer petitions are liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. Transfer of cases has been sought in accordance with Section 407 of the CrPC. Section 407(1) of the CrPC states as under: -

“407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.—

(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court—

(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or

(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or

(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,

it may order—

(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualif