Jharkhand High Court
Priya Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 July, 2023
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Transfer Petition (Cr.) No. 29 of 2022
-----
Priya Pandey ... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Vikash Dwedi ... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, S.P.P.
-----
Oral Order
08 / Dated : 04.07.2023
1. The instant transfer petition has been filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for transfer of Complaint Case No. 3459 of 2020 registered under Section 323, 504 of IPC from the court of J.M. 1st Class-XXV, Ranchi to any court of competent jurisdiction at Palamau, Daltonganj.
2. The petitioner is the wife and the complaint case has been filed by her husband. The main ground seeking transfer is that the petitioner has instituted Palamau Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021 against her husband-opposite party no. 2 under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3/ 4 of D.P. Act which is now pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. Another case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for maintenance bearing Maintenance Case No. 70 of 2022 which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj. The petitioner has been deserted by her husband after being subjected to cruelty and at present she is living at Daltonganj.
3. The complainant in order to harass the petitioner has deliberately filed the complaint case at Ranchi showing the place of occurrence at Ranchi and Daltonganj both. It is submitted in this regard that part of the offence has been shown to have taken place at Daltonganj and part of the offence to have been taken place at Ranchi. One of the witnesses in the complaint is a resident of Daltonganj. The petitioner who is a helpless lady deserted by her husband shall be put to hardship and in convenience to attend the court at Ranchi from Daltonganj in a case lodged by husband to wreck vendetta.
4. In this case, notice has already been duly served to opposite party no. 2 but he has not appeared either personally or through his counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the transfer petition and submitted that two of the witnesses are from Ranchi and it will cause undue hardship to the complainant to conduct the trial at Palamau.
Having considered the rival submission, grounds taken and the materials on record, it appears that part of the offence has been stated to have been taken place at Daltonganj and one of the witnesses is the resident of Daltonganj. The petitioner is the wife of opposite party no. 2 and she has also instituted two cases which are pending at Palamau.
Under the circumstance and for the ends of justice, Complaint Case No. 3459 of 2020 registered under Section 323, 504 of IPC is transferred from the court of J.M. 1st Class-XXV, Ranchi to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj at Palamau or any other court of competent jurisdiction at Daltonganj at Palamau.
In the result, this transfer petition is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT