Chattisgarh High Court
Shivkumar Dewangan vs Shubhadra Dewangan on 25 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
TPCR No. 31 of 2021
Shiv Kumar Dewangan, aged about 27 years, S/o Santosh Kumar, R/o
Ward No. 11, Jhoolkadam Road, Sakti, Tahsil and Thana Sakti, Distt.
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
Shubhadra Dewangan, aged about 23 years, W/o Shivkumar
Dewangan, D/o Dukaluram Dewangan, R/o Bhilaigarh Banglabhatha,
Tahsil and Thana, Bhilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar (C.G.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
25-04-2022
Heard on admission.
(1) This transfer petition is preferred under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth "the Code") for transferring the Criminal Case No. 16/2021 [Smt. Subhadra Dewangan v. Shiv Kumar Dewangan & others] pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa.
(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that two cases between the parties are pending before the Court at Sakti i.e. first case bearing Criminal Case No. 83/2020 (State v. Shiv Kumar & others), based on report lodged by respondent/wife under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC is pending against the applicant/husband before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakti whereas another case filed by the applicant/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is also pending before the Family Court, Sakti against the respondent/wife. He would further submit that the applicant is permanent resident of Tahsil Sakti, District Jangir-Champa, hence, it is very difficult for him to travel from Sakti to Bilaigarh. It is further submitted that family members of the respondent/wife also used to threat the 2 applicant/husband, hence, it is very dangerous for him to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Bilaigarh in the case filed by the respondent/wife against him under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth "Act, 2005"), therefore, it would be convenient and expedient to the parties and also no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/wife that if Criminal Case No. 16/2021 be transferred from Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biliagarh, District Baloda Bazar to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa.
(3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife would submit that marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per the custom prevailing in the Society at Bilaigarh and immidiatedly thereafter the petitioner and his family members treated the wife with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and ousted her from the house and, therefore, at the instance of respondent/wife, offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioner and his family members and after competition of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakti and thereafter due to harrassment meted out by the petitioner, respondent/wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, 2005. He submits that after registration of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. for transfer of said criminal case from Bilaigarh to Sakti only on the ground case under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the Family Court, Sakti. It is submitted that each and every case can be considered and decided on its own merits and only on this count, the criminal case cannot be transferred from one place to another place only for convenience of the petitioner/accused person. It is further submitted that no specific reasons have been assigned by the applicant/husband, as provided under Section 407 of the CrPC, which provide the power to this Court to transfer the case, therefore, the transfer petition deserves to be dismissed at the motion stage itself.
(4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.
3(5) The applicant/husband is said to be the permanent resident of Jhoolkadam Road, Sakti, Tahsil and Thana Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereas respondent/wife is permanent resident of Bilaigarh, Banglabhatha, District Blaodabazar. No such grounds have been assigned by the applicant/husband, as provided under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, Criminal Case No. 16/2021 [Subhadra Dewangan v. Shiv Kumar Dewangan & others] may be transferred from the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biliagarh, District Baloda Bazar to the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa. Furthermore, distance between Bilaigarh to Shakti is about 74 kms. and no hardship will cause to the applicant in travelling upto that distance. It is settled principle of law that power under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised very sparingly and in the exceptional circumstances only being satisfied as provided under the aforesaid provision of law, which is not found in this case . Hence, I am not inclined to allow this transfer petition for transferring the said criminal case to the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa.
(6) Accordingly, the transfer petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge D/-
4