No Transfer of 498a Cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 94-95 of 2010

Decided On: 27.08.2010

Appellants: Jyoti Mishra
Vs.
Respondent: Dhananjaya Mishra

Hon’ble Judges:Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.

Counsels:

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Anjani Kr. Mishra, Rajeev Kumar Bansal,
Akshay K. Ghai and Sanjeev Bansal, Advs.

Subject: Criminal Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders:Indian Penal Code – Section 498A

Disposition:Petition dismissed

Case Note:Criminal Transfer Petition Held, Only the husband has been imploded as a party , accused may not be able to attend the court proceedings for many reasons, one of which may be financial constraints, but the consequences of non-appearance of the accused would be quite drastic Right of the accused to a fair trial and a proper opportunity to defend himself cannot be ignored for the convenience of the complainant Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

1. We have heard Counsel for the petitioner.

2. No one appears for the respondent despite service of notice.

3. The petitioner is the estranged wife of the respondent. While still living with him at Hyderabad, she had filed a written report before the Station House Officer, P.S. Alwal, Secunderabad, that led to the institution of FIR No.
470/2009 dated September 09, 2009 under Section 498A of the Penal Code citing her husband Dhananjaya Mishra (the sole respondent) and five others as accused.
The Police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet and the proceedings against the accused are now pending before the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad in CC No. 804/2009.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner left her husband at Hyderabad and came to live with her parents at Indore. She has filed this petition for transferring the criminal case pending before the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad to a court of competent jurisdiction at Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

READ  498A/406 Acquittal - Only on the basis of Multiple Contradictions in FIR/Statements

5. The first thing that needs to be noticed is that in the Transfer Petitions only the husband Dhananjaya Mishra is impleaded as respondent. The other accused in the criminal case are not made parties to these Transfer Petitions. The Transfer Petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that score alone.

6. Otherwise also, we are not inclined to transfer a criminal case from one State to another solely on the ground that it would be more convenient for the complainant (wife) to prosecute the matter there. It is true that in cases of dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, this Court shows much indulgence to the wife and ordinarily transfers the case to a place where it would be more convenient for the wife to prosecute the proceedings.

7. But a criminal case is on a somewhat different footing. The accused may not be able to attend the court proceedings at Indore for many reasons, one of which may be financial constraints, but the consequences of non-appearance of the accused before the Indore Court would be quite drastic. Having regard to the consequences of non-appearance of the accused in a criminal trial, we are loath to entertain the petitioner’s prayer for transfer. In a criminal proceeding, the right of the accused to a fair trial and a proper opportunity to defend himself cannot be ignored for the convenience of the complainant simply because she happens to be the estranged wife.

8. For all these reasons, we are not (inclined to accept the prayer for transfer in these cases.

READ  498A Jurisdiction and Transfer

9. The Transfer Petitions are dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *