IMPORTANT POINT
Transfer of criminal cases under Section 407 Cr.P.C. requires substantial grounds beyond mere convenience or apprehension; the applicant must demonstrate a reasonable basis for fearing an unfair trial.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

1. Heard Sri Subhash Bisaria, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ankita Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

2. This application Under Section 407 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant with a prayer to transfer the Misc. Case No. 1151/2019, Misc. Case No. 349/2021 and Misc. Case No. 942/2021 for recovery of maintenance amount which is pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur, arising out of Criminal Case No. 3702182/2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also Misc. Case No. 741/2017, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of opposite party No. 1 and she lives in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and she always lives in fear whenever she has to appear in District Court, Sitapur as she has an apprehension that the opposite party no. 1 may harm her. He further submits that opposite party no. 1 always threaten her and abused her and her family members whenever, she appeared in the Trial Court, Sitapur. He further submits that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are also pending before the Family Court, Sitapur between the opposite party No. 1 and the applicant. He further submits that the opposite party No. 1 has tried to influence the proceeding of trial, thus, he submits that aforesaid case may be transferred to the Familcy Court, Lucknow so that the applicant may fully cooperate in the conclusion of case without any fear and the case may also be concluded in a fair manner.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that it is just a ploy to delay the proceedings of the aforesaid case. There is no proper ground for transferring of the aforesaid case from one District Court to another District Court. She further submits that the applicant is adopting a delaying tactics as she has not made any averment regarding the injustice been done to her during the course of proceedings. Moreover, it cannot just be the convenience of the applicant but the private opposite party, the witnesses and the prosecution. The larger issue of case normally being conducted by the jurisdictional court must also weigh on the issue. She is having an apprehension that the opposite party may harm, which is not a ground to transfer the case from one District to another. Thus, the instant application being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected.

5. After considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case as well as after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds that the applicant and opposite party no. 1 are contesting cases against each other in the concerned courts and it appears that the applicant has filed the present application only considering her own advantage, which is not a ground to transfer the case from one District to another District.

6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajkumar Sabu vs. Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. 2021 SCC Online SC 378 has been pleased to observe in paragraph Nos.9 and 10, which are reproduced herein-below:

“9. Ordinarily, if a Court has jurisdiction to hear a case, the case ought to proceed in that Court only. The proceeding in the Salem Court has not been questioned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground contemplated in Section 406 of the1973 Code. Jurisdiction under the aforesaid provision ought to be sparingly used, as held in the case of Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307. Such jurisdiction cannot be exercised on mere apprehension of one of the parties that justice would not be done in a given case. This was broadly the ratio in the case of Gurcharan Dass Chadha (supra). In my opinion if a Court hearing a case possesses the jurisdiction to proceed with the same, solely based on the fact that one of the parties to that case is unable to follow the language of that Court would not warrant exercise of juris