Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rupsa Sarkar & Ors vs Unknown on 13 September, 2011
Author: Kanchan Chakraborty
Bench: Kanchan Chakraborty
1 5. 13.09.2011
.
m.b. C.R.R. No. 2182 of 2010
With
C.R.A.N. 1712 of 2011
In re.: An application under Section 407 read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In the matter of: Rupsa Sarkar & Ors. ........................petitioners Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ms. Subhashree Patel.......................for the petitioners Mr. Pushpal Satpathi, Mr. Suman Das Adhikari..................for the O.P. No. 2 With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the revisional application itself is taken up for hearing treating the same as on day's list.
The petitioners are made accused in a criminal case, being C/242 of 2009, under Sections 504/506/423/448 of the Indian Penal Code initiated by the opposite party no. 2, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Barrackpore. The petitioners prayed for transfer of the same to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas mainly on the ground of their inconvenience to attend the trial at Barrackpore. The petitioners are considerably aged persons and they are also being threatened by the opposite party no. 2. It has 2 also been mentioned in the petition that the opposite party no. 2 will not be prejudiced in any way if the case is transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24-Parganas.
Ms. Sinha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that Rupsa Sarkar, the petitioner no. 1, initiated a criminal action under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party no. 2 and others, which is pending in the Court at Alipore. She further submits that a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 initiated by the petitioner no. 1, Rupsa Sarkar, is also pending in the Court at Alipore. The husband of Rupsa Sarkar instituted a matrimonial suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for restitution of conjugal right with Rupsa Sarkar in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Barrackpore. The prayer for transfer of the said suit under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by this Court.
Mr. Satpathi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, contends that cause of action has arisen within the local jurisdiction of the Barrackpore Court and, as such, question of transfer simply on the ground of inconvenience on the part of the petitioners to attend the trial, cannot be said to 3 be reasonable and justified one. This apart, he contends that the matrimonial suit and another criminal case are pending in the Court at Barrackpore. The petitioner no. 1 is supposed to attend the Court at Barrackpore in connection with the criminal case as well as matrimonial suit. Therefore, there is no reason to transfer the case to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore.
I have carefully gone through the petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., the accused in C/242 of 2009. The application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the matrimonial suit from the Court at Barrackpore to the Court at Alipore was rejected by this Court. The ground in that application was similar to that of this petition. A criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was initiated by the petitioner, Rupsa Sarkar, by lodging one First Information Report in the Kasba Police Station. The incident alleged therein had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Alipore Court. Accordingly, the matter is pending therein. It appears to me that the petitioners are supposed to attend both the Courts at Alipore and at Barrackpore for different cases. So when they are supposed to attend Barrackpore Court in connection with other cases, there would be no inconvenience for them to appear and attend Court at Barrackpore in connection with this case. The grounds taken in 4 the application do not appear to be justified and sufficient enough to transfer the case from the Court at Barrackpore to the Court at Alipore invoking the provisions of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal cases are not supposed to be transferred at the desire of one of the parties to the case. When the local Court assumed jurisdiction and proceeded with the case, it would be wise and proper to conclude the trial by the Court having local jurisdiction. Transferring of the case from one Court to another that too from one district to another requires exceptional and extra-ordinary reasons. In the instant case, I do not find any such reason has been reflected in the petition under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code. This does not appear to be fit and proper case where order of transfer can be passed as prayed for. Accordingly, I reject the prayer of the petitioners.
With the above directions, this application stands dismissed. In the facts of the present case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.
Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. In view of the disposal of the main application, the application for extension of interim order of stay, being C.R.A.N. 1712 of 2011, has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.
5
Let urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)