SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Purvi Jain Bohra, Wife of Ritesh Kumar Bohra - Petitioners
Versus
Ritesh Kumar Bohra, Son of Suresh Bohra - Respondents
Transfer Petition (Cr.) No.12 of 2021
Decided On : 15-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate, Mr.Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a reasonable apprehension for transfer under Section 407 of the CrPC, as emphasized by relevant case law.

Headnote:

Transfer Petition - Criminal Case - Section 407 of CrPC - [498A/34 IPC, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015, Section 125 of CrPC, Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] - The court considered the transfer petition under Section 407 of the CrPC for transferring Criminal Case No.2338/2019 from Raipur to Durg. The petitioner sought transfer citing her residence, pending cases, and family circumstances. The respondents opposed the transfer, arguing that the petitioner had already been examined and the transfer was sought to delay the trial. The court examined the provisions of Section 407 of the CrPC and relevant case law, emphasizing the need for a reasonable apprehension for transfer. It found that the petitioner's request lacked reasonable apprehension and dismissed the transfer petition, directing the police to provide security for the petitioner's visit to Raipur for recording evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to transfer Criminal Case No.2338/2019 from Raipur to Durg citing her residence, pending cases, and family circumstances. The respondents opposed the transfer, arguing that the petitioner had already been examined and the transfer was sought to delay the trial.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's request lacked reasonable apprehension and dismissed the transfer petition, directing the police to provide security for the petitioner's visit to Raipur for recording evidence.

Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer of Criminal Case No.2338/2019 from Raipur to Durg should be granted under Section 407 of the CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a reasonable apprehension for transfer, as per the provisions of Section 407 of the CrPC and relevant case law. It found that the petitioner's request lacked reasonable apprehension and dismissed the transfer petition.

Final Decision: The transfer petition was dismissed, and the police were directed to provide security for the petitioner's visit to Raipur for recording evidence.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 407 of the CrPC for transferring Criminal Case No.2338/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg for offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of the IPC.

2. The petitioner being victim in Crime No.38/18 for offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC has filed this transfer petition stating inter-alia that she is residing along with her parents at Durg and she has filed a complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015, which is also pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg being Criminal Case No.947/2018. Thereafter, she has filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance before the Family Court, Durg, which is registered as Case No.168/2019 and one more application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter called as 'Act of 1955') is also pending at Family Court, Durt being Case No.500/2019 and respondent No.1's application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights is also pending at Family Court, Durg being Case No.577/2019 and she has 4 years minor child and she is residing at Durg. Therefore, Criminal Case No.2338/2019 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur be transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

3. Reply has been filed by respondents No.1, 3 and 4, who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner stating inter-alia that charge-sheet for offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 25.3.2019, in which the victim/petitioner has been examined on 10.1.2020 and this transfer petition under Section 407 of the CrPC has been filed by her on 13.7.2021 after her examination before the said Court on 10.1.2020 and even she has been partly cross-examined and even final report has been submitted by the police before the jurisdictional criminal court in the FIR made by the petitioner for offence under Sections 294 and 506/34 of the IPC finding that no offence is made out against respondent No.1. In that view of the matter, the transfer petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner except certain documents.

5. Mr.T.K.Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that since all the cases are pending either in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg or in Family Court, Durg, therefore, it would be appropriate to transfer Criminal Case No.2338/2019 also in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. He would further submit that the petitioner has 4 years minor son and her father has also some medical issue, therefore, she is unable to attend the Court at Raipur and therefore, application be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Mr.Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 3 and 4, would submit that this is the case where victim / petitioner has already been examined on 10.1.2020 and thereafter she has also been partly cross-examined on 10.1.2020 and thereafter only on 13.7.2021 this transfer petition has been filed to delay the trial as respondent No.1 is husband and respondents No.3 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are aged about 60 years and 55 years and as such, convenience of all have to be seen while transferring the case under Section 407 of the CrPC and as such, it is a where transfer petition deserves to be rejected.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. Section 407 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) t

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top