Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonia Keswani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 June, 2020
Author: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
Bench: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No.49772/2019
(Sonia Keswani Vs.State of M.P. and another)
Jabalpur, Dated 05/06/2020
Shri Lal Achyutendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for
the applicant.
Shri Piyush Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The applicant has filed this petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for transferring S.T. No.45/2019 pending before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jabalpur.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the applicant lodged a report against respondent No.2 at Police Station, Dindori alleging therein that she lived along with respondent No.2 as wife and respondent No.2 is working as a teacher in Dindori. Respondent No.2, being husband, harassed her mentally and physically on petty matter and abuses her. It is also alleged that applicant was threatened and beaten by respondent No.2. On the basis of that report, Crime No.93/2019 registered against the applicant and later on, during investigation, she further alleged that she and respondent No.2 solemnized marriage in a temple and both executed an 2 agreement which was notarized. But, respondent No.2 did not solemnized the marriage as per Hindu rituals, however, on the pretext of marriage respondent No.2 constantly made sexual relations with the applicant and denied to marry as per Hindu rites and rituals. Offence under Section 376 of IPC was added and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed which is pending as S.T. No.45/2019 in the Court of 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori.
3. The applicant has filed this petition for transfer of the case on the ground that most of the witnesses are living in Jabalpur and the applicant was threatened by respondent No.2. She has already lodged a report to that effect in the Police Station, Ghamapur, Jabalpur. Therefore, on the ground that applicant and other witnesses are living in Jabalpur and Dindori, where the criminal case is pending, is 150 Kms far from the Jabalpur, she will have difficulty to attend the Court at Dindori, thus, prays to transfer this case from the jurisdiction of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori to any competent Court of jurisdiction at District Jabalpur.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Criminal case can be transferred on the grounds as it appear in Section 407 of Cr.P.C. Three grounds are as under :
"(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or 3
(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."
On bare perusal of the grounds mentioned in Section 407 of Cr.P.C., there is no ground mentioned in Section 407 of Cr.P.C. that if witness is living some where, the case may be transferred to the jurisdiction of that Court.
6. Section 177 of Cr.P.C. is also relevant which reads as under :
"177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into an tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."
7. After hearing of all the counsel and on perusal of the facts mentioned in the FIR as also in this petition, it is reflected that the applicant developed relationship with respondent No.2 when she was pursuing study in the year 2014 and since then the applicant and respondent No.2 developed sexual relationship with each other and thereafter solemnized the marriage in temple and executed an affidavit which was certified by the notary. Thereafter a dispute arose between them on petty issues. Previously the applicant filed an FIR but later 4 on compromise the matter and she continued living with respondent No.2 as wife. Again the applicant lodged a report against respondent No.2 registered as Crime No.93/2019 and during investigation added some fact that respondent No.2 harassed her mentally and physically as a husband, therefore, Section 498A of IPC has been added and during investigation when statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 164 of IPC, she added that the applicant did not solemnized marriage as per Hindu rites and rituals, however, on the pretext of marriage, respondent No.2 sexually exploited the applicant and refused to solemnize the marriage as per Hindu rites and rituals. On the basis of that statement offence under Section 376 of IPC is further added and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. It is also reflected that the trial has been begun, charges have been framed and the case was posted for prosecution evidence especially for the evidence of the applicant. At this stage, the applicant filed this petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for transferring the case.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baljit Singh and others Vs. State of J&K and others, AIR 1982 SC 1558 in para-1 has held as under :
"A case under Ss. 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code has been transferred from Jammu to Srinagar by the High Court through the impugned order on the sole ground that most of the witnesses who belong to Jammu have already been examined by the trial court and that only witnesses from Kashmir division or Delhi remain to be examined. We feel that in the circumstances of the case this is not at all 5 a proper approach to the matter specially when another application for transfer of the case had already been rejected by the same Hon'ble Judge of the High Court although even at that stage the same ground for the transfer was put forward before him. Nor do we find that it would be a correct principle to apply to the transfer of criminal cases that they should be heard at the place from where a large number of witnesses are to be examined. The normal course of things should not have been lightly interfered with and the case should have been allowed to be tried by the court which had territorial jurisdiction. Accepting the appeal, therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the case shall continue to be tried at Jammu by the court which has dealt with it so far."
9. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and to the facts on which the applicant is praying for transfer of the case, this Court finds that for the sake of convenience of the witnesses, the case should not be transferred because it is not a valid ground for transferring the case from the proper jurisdiction of the Court to the Court where the witnesses are residing. If the applicant is having a threat, she can approach to the concerned Police for proper protection. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition.
10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed without any order as to cost.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2020.06.06 13:42:11 +05'30'