ORDER : 1. The petitioners have filed this transfer petition under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act of 2005’) bearing Criminal Case No. 1054/2021 (Smt. Kritika Sahu vs. Trilok Sahu and Others) pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari to Raipur principally on the ground that the petitioners are residents of various places of Chhattisgarh as well as of Bilaspur and Raipur and it is highly inconvenient for them to attend the court proceeding at Dhamtari, therefore, it be transferred. 2. Mrs. Renu Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds raised in the transfer petition would submit that considering the inconvenience being faced by the eight petitioners herein, the proceeding be transferred to the Court at Raipur which has been opposed by Mrs. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and she would submit that proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is pending in the Family Court, Dhamtari and the respondent is having a two year old child born out of the wedlock with petitioner No. 1 herein. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajkumar Sabu vs. Sabu Trade Private Limited, 2021 SCC Online SC 378. Mrs. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that convenience of one of the parties cannot be a ground for transfer of criminal case and referred to paragraph 10 of the report. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 4. Application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 can be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction by virtue of Section 27 of the Act of 2005 which provides as under: “27. Jurisdiction: (1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which: (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed. (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed. (c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed. (c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. (2) Any order made this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.” 5. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 can be filed by the person aggrieved within the local limits of which the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or where the cause of action has arisen and that court shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under the Act and to try offences under the Act. 6. In this case, admittedly, the respondent / complainant is residing within the local limits of Dhamtari court and cause of action has also arisen in the local limits of Dhamtari court and therefore by virtue of Section 27 of the Act of 2005, that court will be the competent court to entertain the application of protection orders under Section 18 of the Act of 2005 which is pending consideration. 7. In Rajkumar Sabu (supra), His Lordship of the Supreme Court relying upon the earlier decision in the case of Rajesh Talwar vs. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 217 has held as under: “10. The petitioner’s plea for transfer is based primarily on convenience. But convenience of one of the parties cannot be a ground for allowing his application. Transfer of a criminal case under Section 406 of the 1973 Code can be directed when such transfer would be “expedient for the ends of justice.” This expression entails factors beyond mere convenience of the parties or one of them in conducting a case before a Court having jurisdiction to hear the case. The parties are related, and are essentially fighting commercial litigations filed in multiple jurisdictions. While instituting civil suits, both the parties had chosen fora, some of which were away from their primary places of business, or the main places of business of the defendants. The parties are related, and are essentially fighting commercial litigations filed in multiple jurisdictions. While instituting civil suits, both the parties had chosen fora, some of which were away from their primary places of business, or the main places of business of the defendants. The ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Mrudul M. Damle vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, (2012) 5 SCC 706 , cannot apply in the factual context of this case. In that case, a proceeding pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Courts, New Delhi was directed to be transferred to the Special Judge, CBI cases, Court of Session, Thane. Out of 92 witnesses enlisted in the charge sheet, 88 were from different parts of Maharashtra. That was a case which this Court found was not “Delhi-centric.” The accused persons were based in western part of this Country. It was because of these reasons, the case was directed to be transferred. The circumstances surrounding the case pending in the Salem Court are entirely different. In the case of Rajesh Talwar vs. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 217 , it was held: “46. Jurisdiction of a court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Often either the complainant or the accused have to travel across an entire State to attend to criminal proceedings before a jurisdictional court. In some cases to reach the venue of the trial court, a complainant or an accused may have to travel across several States. Likewise, witnesses too may also have to travel long distances in order to depose before the jurisdictional court. If the plea of inconvenience for transferring the cases from one court to another, on the basis of time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code earmarking the courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless. Convenience or inconvenience are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned. The instant plea, therefore, deserves outright rejection.” 8. Considering the legal position and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Sabu (supra) and Rajesh Talwar (supra), it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to invoke the provision contained in Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the transfer petition is dismissed. The instant plea, therefore, deserves outright rejection.” 8. Considering the legal position and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Sabu (supra) and Rajesh Talwar (supra), it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to invoke the provision contained in Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the transfer petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file exemption application for personal appearance based on specific ground which will be considered by that Court strictly in accordance with law. No order as to costs.