Arun vs State & Anr on 19 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crl.Misc.Trnfr.Pet. No. 15 / 2017
Arun S/o Sh. Prasann Chandra, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste
Bishnoi, Resident of 25/28, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Urvashi Bishnoi D/o Sh. Ravikant Bishnoi, Resident of House
No. 402, Sector No.8, New Civil Lines, Hanumangarh Junction,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh for Mr. Sajjan Singh
Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor
For Complainant(s): Mr. Pankaj Gupta
__

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order

19/07/2017

Accused-petitioner has preferred this petition under Section

407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of Criminal

Case No.159/2000 (State Vs. Arun), pending before Judicial

Magistrate, Hanumangarh to Sri Ganganagar or Bikaner Judgeship

or any other Court of competent jurisdiction out of Hanumangarh

Judgeship.

In the aforesaid criminal case, petitioner’s wife respondent

No.2 is complainant and he is castigated for offence punishable
(2 of 4)
[CRLTP-15/2017]

under Section 498A IPC. The trial of the case is in vogue since

2009 and on the ensuing date of hearing witnesses of the

prosecution are to be examined. The complainant has already

appeared in the witness box and her cross-examination has also

been completed. For seeking transfer of the aforesaid criminal

case, petitioner has set out many grounds, which may be

summarized as under:

1) Brother of the complainant Shri Raghvendra is a practicing

lawyer in Hanumangarh Judgeship and there is every

possibility that he may influence trial and also resort to some

READ  Rajeev Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 31 October, 2013

unlawful means to create hindrance in a fair and impartial

trial .

2) The conduct of the complainant and her family members is

also a cause of concern inasmuch as earlier at their behest

transfer applications were filed making allegations against

Presiding Officer so as to dissuade him from hearing

anticipatory bail application of petitioner.

3) A petition for dissolution of marriage is filed by petitioner

before Family Court No.2, Jaipur and registered as case

No.245/2009 has been transferred to District Court Sri

Ganganagar with the consent of both the parties.

Besides aforementioned grounds, some ancillary grounds for

transfer are also pleaded in the petition. In support of transfer

petition, order-sheets of the case and some documents are

enclosed.

(3 of 4)
[CRLTP-15/2017]

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and

perused the materials available on record.

It is not in dispute that trial of the aforesaid criminal case is

in vogue since 2009 and it has materially progressed inasmuch as

statement of complainant has already been recorded. Transfer of

a criminal case under Section 407 Cr.P.C. can be ordered by this

Court provided the requirements envisaged therein are satisfied.

The remedy of transferring a criminal case cannot be exercised in

a routine manner on certain grounds which are wholly illusory.

A jejune ground that petitioner’s brother is practicing lawyer

at Hanumangarh and he may influence the trial, without there

being any cogent material to substantiate, is not tenable. The

other grounds sought to be canvassed by the petitioner are also

READ  Ms Sonu Suri vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 25 July, 2017

not convincing more particularly in the wake of the fact that trial is

going on since 2009.

For invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 407

Cr.P.C., an aggrieved party is required to show apprehension, of

not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial, founded on

reasonable grounds and not imaginary or hypothetical grounds

based on conjectures and surmises. Indisputably, no universal or

hard fast rule can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition
(4 of 4)
[CRLTP-15/2017]

and normally each case required decision on the basis of its own

facts.

This Court, in case of State of Rajasthan Vs.

Manjeet Singh (2017 Cr. L.J. 1268), has thrashed out law on the

subject and held:

“As a matter of fact, transfer of a case from one
Court to another indirectly casts shadow on the
competence and integrity of the Judge from whom the
case is sought to be transferred. Therefore, mere
presumption or possible apprehensions are not
sufficient for seeking transfer and transfer can only be
ordered on good and sufficient grounds. If the Court is
satisfied that the ground for transfer is not
substantiated or as such does not exists, it is not
desirable to transfer the case. All that is pleaded in the
petition and sought to be canvassed before the Court
are unsubstantiated pleas, which I am afraid are not
satisfying the grounds for transfer set out by the
legislature under
Section 407 Cr.P.C.”

In totality, attempt made by the petitioner to seek transfer of

the case is not on genuine grounds and therefore Court cannot

permit him to subserve the ends of justice under the guise of

wholly unfounded apprehension by invoking Section 407 Cr.P.C.

Resultantly, the transfer petition fails and the same is hereby

dismissed.

( P.K. LOHRA)J.

Leave a Comment

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