Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T.Savitri vs Sri Turubilly Ramakrishna on 24 January, 2020
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.83 of 2019
ORDER:-
This petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking transfer of C.C.No.232 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tadepalligudem, to the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Eluru, or to any other competent Court of equivalent jurisdiction in Eluru.
2. Facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows:
The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent. Their marriage took place on 25.01.1991 at Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. Her husband harassed her with a demand for additional dowry. Therefore, she has lodged a report with the Police i.e. Women Police Station, Eluru. A case in crime No.24 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short "D.P. Act"), was registered against the first respondent. After charge sheet is field, the same was subsequently numbered as C.C.No.232 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tadepalligudem.
4. The first respondent filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.64 of 2016 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The petitioner has filed D.V.C. No.90 of 2016 2 on the file of Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. She has also filed a petition for maintenance in M.C.No.15 of 2016 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Eluru. The said cases filed by her are now pending on the file of the said Courts. So, she has filed a petition for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.64 of 2016 filed by her husband who is the first respondent for divorce, to the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. The said Tr.O.P.No.1051 of 2017 was allowed and the said case was transferred to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Eluru.
5. On 13.11.2017, when the petitioner attended the Court at Tadepalligudem, in the said criminal case filed by her under Section 498-A of I.P.C., that the first respondent threatened her in the open Court with dire consequences to withdraw the case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. So, she has filed Tr.CMP No.59 of 2019 to transfer C.C.No.232 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tadepalligudem, to the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Eluru, to try the same along with M.C.No.15 of 2016. The said petition was dismissed on 28.08.2019 on the ground that if the said case is transferred to Eluru, it will cause inconvenience to the respondents and witnesses. It is stated that she has also lodged a report with the Police seeking protection, however, no action is taken till now. Therefore, since all the cases are now pending in the Courts at Eluru, she sought transfer of the said criminal case in C.C.No.232 of 2017 also to the Court in Eluru, as stated supra. 3
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the nineth respondent/State.
Though served with notice, none appeared for respondents 1 to 8.
7. The only ground on which the petitioner now seeks transfer of C.C.No.232 of 2017 relating to the case registered under Section 498-A of I.P.C. which is on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tadepalligudem, to the Court at Eluru, is that when she attended the Court in connection with the said case, the first respondent, who is her husband threatened her with dire consequences. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, observed in the impugned order that there is no material to substantiate the said contention that the first respondent threatened her with dire consequences. At para No.(d) of the impugned order, she further observed that if the first respondent has really threatened the petitioner, she should have given a report to the Police or at least she would have informed the same to the Court and she faield to do so. Therefore, she held that the mere allegation of threat cannot be taken into consideration.
8. This Court do not see any legal flaw or infirmity in the said findings recorded by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru. There is no authenticated material placed before this Court to substantiate the said allegation that the first respondent threatened the petitioner in the open Court. Mere giving report to the Police by the petitioner stating that she was threatened by the first respondent by itself cannot be a valid 4 proof to substantiate the said contention. Further, the said ground urged by the petitioner, that as she was threatened by the first respondent, that the case has to be transferred from Tadepalligudem to Eluru, is not a valid legal ground to order for transfer as contemplated under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. Three gounds are enumerated under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., to order for transfer of cases from one Court to another Court. They are as follows:
"a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or
b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or
c) that an order under this Section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice."
9. It is only when the Court finds that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be held in any Criminal Court or when some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise or order under this Section is required by any provision of the Code or having regard to the general inconvenience of the parties or witnesses, the Court can order for transfer of the case from one Court to another Court. The fact that when a threat is given by the opposite party, that the case is to be transferred from the said Court is not made as a ground for transfer under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present case cannot be transferred from the Court of Tadepalligudem to Eluru. If really, there is any such threat given by the first respondent to the petitioner, she is at liberty to approach the Police seeking protection. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the 5 case, the present petition lacks valid ground to order for transfer as prayed for.
10. In the result, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date : 24-01-2020 IKN/ARR 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.83 of 2019 Date : 24-01-2020 IKN/ARR