Transfer of trial under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. requires substantiation of reasonable apprehension of unfair trial, considering the convenience of all parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 407 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for transfer of case/trial arising out of the FIR No.0125 dated 16.08.2023 registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station city Budhlada, District Mansa, Punjab (hereinafter to be referred the ‘FIR in question’) to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda, Punjab.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to the demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty being meted out to the complainant by accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 respectively and hence an FIR ibid got registered by her. It is further the allegation that sufficient dowry was also given at the time of marriage including gold articles, cash etc.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner had been maltreated by the accused/respondent No.2 to 4 (herein) on which account she was constrained to have the FIR in question registered. The parents of the petitioner are old and her father is suffering a knee ailment and there is no other adult male member in the family of the petitioner who can accompany her to appear before the Court at Budhlada, District Mansa, Punjab. The petitioner is living alongwith her parents at Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda (Punjab) and she is required to travel to attend the Court at Budhlada in District Mansa, Punjab which is situated at a distance of about 80 kilometers. Further, the petitioner has also instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Bathinda as also a petition for the grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. at Bathinda. Learned counsel has further submitted that the cases emanating from matrimonial discord are to be considered sympathetically in favour of the wife when a transfer petition is instituted at her instance. It has been further argued that the trial Judge is prejudiced against the petitioner which factum is decipherable from order dated 02.08.2024, whereby bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner (herein), for her non-appearance as a prosecution witness. Therefore, it has been submitted that the instant petition be allowed and the trial emanating from the FIR in question be transferred from Budhlada, District Mansa, Punjab to a Court of competent Court of jurisdiction, Bathinda.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of instant petition by raising submissions in tandem with the reply/status report dated 28.05.2024 filed on behalf of the State; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“(ii) During the investigation proceedings, all the private respondents No.2 to 4, had joined the investigation on 27.08.2023, in compliance of the order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the Ld. Court of Additional Sessions Judge Mansa. After joining all the accused persons in the investigation proceedings, all of them were released on bail by the IO, on furnishing of personal bonds by them. During the investigation of present case/FIR, offence under section 406 IPC was added in the present case/FIR, vide DDR No.34, Dated 21.11.2023. On 22.02.2024, all the accused persons got the concession of anticipatory bail for the enhanced offence under section 406 IPC. Then after completion of investigation in the present case/FIR, challan against all the private respondents was presented by the IO, before the Ld. Court of Hlaqa Magistrate Budhlada i.e. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Budhlada, for the offence under section 498- A/406/323/34 IPC, on 05.03.2024. On 23.04.2024, charges were framed by the Ld. Trial Court against the accused persons. There are total 15 Prosecution Witnesses in the present case/FIR which is now pending for 02.08.2024 for evidence of Prosecution witnesses

(iii) It would be pertinent to mention here that apart from the complainant, father of the complainant and other private witnesses there are total 08 official witnesses whi