Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 113 (PAT)

Chandraprabha Kumari v. State of Bihar

2017-01-24

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. 1. Heard the parties. The petitioner is the wife of opposite party No. 2. Opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are family members of opposite party No. 2. The petitioner has filed a criminal case, registered as Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No. 58 of 2016, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar. 2. The present application, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed seeking transfer of said Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No. 58 of 2016 from Buxar Court to any other Court of equivalent jurisdiction under the judgeship of Patna for trial and disposal. The police in the said case have already submitted charge-sheet. 3. The plea which has been taken for transfer of the case is that the petitioner has genuine fears and threat to her life because her in-laws, against whom the criminal case has been filed, are residents of Buxar. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in case of Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay & Anr., reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 , and this Court's decision in case of Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2008(4) PLJR 251 . 4. The ground, which has been taken for transfer of the said Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No. 58 of 2016, in exercise of power under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not acceptable, in view of Supreme Court decision in case of Jyoti Mishra vs. Dhananjaya Mishra, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 803 , the Supreme Court succinctly observed that in cases of dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, the Court shows much indulgence to the wife, but a criminal case is on entirely different footing. In a criminal proceeding, right of the accused to a fair trial and proper opportunity to defend himself, cannot be ignored for the convenience of the informant simply because she happens to be the estranged wife. Following the said decision, this Court has held in case of Fojiya Nishat vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., passed in Cr. Misc. In a criminal proceeding, right of the accused to a fair trial and proper opportunity to defend himself, cannot be ignored for the convenience of the informant simply because she happens to be the estranged wife. Following the said decision, this Court has held in case of Fojiya Nishat vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25766 of 2016, dated 20.12.2016, that inconvenience cannot be a valid basis for transfer of criminal proceeding from one Court to another. Reference may also be made in this regard to another Supreme Court decision in case of Rajesh Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., reported in (2012) 4 SCC 217 . 5. The Supreme Court decision in case of Sumita Singh (supra), has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the said case related to transfer of matrimonial proceedings and not criminal proceedings. The decision of this Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary (supra), on which learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon, does not lay down any law that a criminal case should be transferred on the grounds which have been taken on behalf of the petitioner in the present case. In any view of the matter, in the light of decision of the Supreme Court, in case of Jyoti Mishra (supra), this application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.