Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 18 (MP)

Prachi Pandey v. Anant Shukla

2018-01-04

S.K.PALO

body2018
ORDER 1. The petitioner is the complainant in Criminal Case No. RCT No. 4102252/2016, pending before the JMFC, Rewa. The complainant/petitioner was threatened by the respondent No. 1/husband, when she had gone to Rewa to attend the case on the ground that a relative of the respondent is working as District Prosecution Officer, Rewa. Therefore, she requests for transfer of the case to Satna. She claimed that she is living at Satna at her uncle's place. She would be able to attend the case freely at Satna, if it is transferred to Satna and she claims that the respondent No. 1/husband was pressurizing and threatening her to compromise and to withdraw a criminal case. Hence, she would be deprived of justice, if the trial is continued at Rewa. 2. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5 vehemently opposed the contentions and it is submitted that marriage took place on 4.12.2015. The petitioner left the matrimonial home on 5.12.2015 and is residing at Amarpatan. She came to Rewa after “Gauna” on 15.12.2015. Thereafter, left the house of the respondent on 16.1.2016 and since then she did not return. She lodged the FIR on 25.11.2016 on a concocted averments. The respondent No. 1 has filed an application for divorce before the Familty Court, Rewa. She participated in the proceedings before the Family Court and moved application for interim maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act but the petitioner with false grounds had requested to transfer the case from JMFC, Rewa to JMFC, Satna. 3. It is further claimed that the grounds raised by the petitioner are not maintainable under the eyes of law. The alleged incident took place at Rewa and the charge sheet has been filed at Rewa. Therefore, the respondent on false and concocted averments, has lodged the complaint alleging the threat which is not true. The Police Authorities have not found any truth in the said complaint and, therefore, have not taken any action on the complaint. Thus, the transfer of the case to Satna is not maintainable. The same be dismissed with heavy cost. 4. Perused the record. 5. Considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondents. The Police Authorities have not found any truth in the said complaint and, therefore, have not taken any action on the complaint. Thus, the transfer of the case to Satna is not maintainable. The same be dismissed with heavy cost. 4. Perused the record. 5. Considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner, instead of lodging a report at the police station, has filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police on the alleged threatening made by the respondent No. 1 when she had gone to Rewa for attending the case. The respondent is the complainant and requires to attend the Court of JMFC, Rewa only once for recording her statement as a witness. Whereas the respondents are five in number and if the case is transferred to Satna from Rewa then the respondents are to travel from Rewa to Satna on every date of adjournment to attend the case. The allegation that the distant relative of the respondents is serving as a District Prosecution Officer also do not have much weight as she would not have any influence over the trial Court. 6. The assurance of a fair trial is the main criteria for exercise of the powers under section 407 of the CrPC. Mere allegation by the complainant that there is no congenial atmosphere for a free trial or mere apprehension is not enough. The complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to have forum of her/his own choice. 7. A transfer cannot be made on the basis of unfounded charges. The transfer of the case would result in harassment to the opposite parties and expenditure, would deprive the opposite parties of engaging a counsel of their choice at different station. 8. Besides, if the petitioner apprehends danger or any threaten to her, she may move appropriate application before the trial Court for police protection. That being so, with the note that the petitioner may seek protection at the time of appearing in the Court for recording her statement. This application for the transfer of the criminal case is dismissed. 9. Before parting with the case, it would be appropriate to request the trial Court to expedite the disposal of this case and see that necessary protection is given to the petitioner as and when she comes before the Court, in case, the petitioner requests for such protection. This application for the transfer of the criminal case is dismissed. 9. Before parting with the case, it would be appropriate to request the trial Court to expedite the disposal of this case and see that necessary protection is given to the petitioner as and when she comes before the Court, in case, the petitioner requests for such protection. Vikas Mishra for petitioner; A. P. Singh for respondents No. 1 to 5; C. K. Mishra, Government Advocate for respondent No. 6.