MALAY KUMAR BASU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revisional application filed by the petitioner, Smt. Mahua Bhowmick alias Priya, against the opposite party Sri Kaushik Bhowmick alias Bobby, her husband, and is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Nadia dated 9th January, 2002 whereunder he allowed a petition under Section 407 of the Cr. P. C. and transferred the Misc. Case No. 215 (iv) of 2000 from the Court of the learned C. J. M. Nadia to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani.

( 2 ) IN the said petition under Section 407 of the Cr. P. C. which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner-husband took the plea that he was threatened by the other side, i. e. , his wife, with dire consequences, whenever he went to the Court at Nadia in connection with the hearing of the above-mentioned misc. case and in view of such threat to his safety and security, he filed that petition under Section 407 of Cr. P. C. seeking transfer of the said case to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge being satisfied with the grounds made out therein, allowed the petition and transferred the said case to the Court of the learned Magistrate, Kalyani.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by that order, the wife has preferred the present revisional application challening that order as erroneous and illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) IT is to be mentioned that the sole ground on which the transfer of the litigation has been sought by the husband was that he was being threatened with dire consequences by the opposite party whenever he went to the district Court of Nadia to attend the Court in connection with the hearing of the matter. Besides this, there was no other ground. The question is whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in allowing such a transfer of the case to the Court of another place on such a ground. In this connection, M. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party husband, has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 292 : (1983 Cri LJ 437 ). It is curious to note that this judgment of the Apex Court instead of supporting the contention of Mr. Mukherjee stands in the way of his getting a favourable order. In this case, also the facts and circumstances were identical. Here also the solitary ground which was made out seeking the transfer was that the safety of the petitioner would be in danger if he was to attend the Court where that case was being heard. Their Lordships observed that such a ground was too nebulous to be considered for the purpose of transferring a case from one place to another, namely, from Pune to Indore, particularly in the circumstances of the case where all the witnesses were found to be resident of Pune. Therefore, their Lordships rejected such a prayer but, however, were not unmindful about the question that had cropped up regarding the petitioner's safety and security and they passed an order directing the Commissioner of Police to make full arrangement, if need be, for giving sufficient protection and safeguard to the petitioner, in case his attending the Court at Pune was found to be in any way unsafe and insecure. When such dictates of their Lordships of the Apex Court in this Ruling were pointed out, Mr. Mukherjee modifies his stand and submits that he is no longer pressing for his prayer for transfer in view of such principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court. But, however, he leaves it to this Court for arranging sufficient safeguards for the safety and security of his client.

( 5 ) MISS Gomes, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the question of making arrangement for police help to protect the petitioner in case of such danger must not be on imaginary grounds and this Court is not obliged to ensure any such security arrangement for the petitioner without having particular regard to the actual facts and circumstances of the case prevailin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document