Dismissed

Mukesh Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Jul 2023TPCR/20/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought transfer of a pending dowry harassment case from Judiciary Champa to Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur under Sections 407 and 482 CrPC. The court held that, as the offence was reported in Champa and most witnesses reside there, transfer to Bilaspur was not expedient or convenient.

What did the court decide?

The petition for transfer of Criminal Case No. 94/2021 from Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa to Billaspur is dismissed.

Mukesh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

TPCR No. 20 of 2023

¶5

Mukesh Rathore S/o Shri Shhatruhan Prasad Rathore Aged About 34 Years R/o Ananta Homes House No. 05, Mopka, P.S. Mopka, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: S.H.O. P.S. Champa, District- JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Smt. Priyanka Rathore W/o Mukesh Kumar Rathore Aged About 27 Years R/o - C/o Bhishm Rathore (Ex Parshad), Railway Colony Kailash Nagar, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner	: Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate.
For State/respondent No. 1.	: Mr. Aman Kesharwani, P.L.
For Respondent No. 2.	: Mr. Anshul R. Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Judge

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

28/07/2023

¶15

The present petition preferred under Section 407 read Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the transfer of the pending Criminal Case No. 94/2021 (hereinafter referred to as Criminal Case in question) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District-JanjgirChampa (C.G.) under Section 498-A/34 of IPC (Crime number 31/2021 of Police Station-Champa) to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur.

¶16

The transfer petition is to the effect that the marriage of petitioner Mukesh Rathore with respondent No.2 Mrs. Priyanka Rathore was solemnized on 23.01.2019. After marriage, they started living together in Bilaspur. On 23.01.2021, the respondent/wife - Smt. Priyanka Rathore filed a report in

¶17

¶18

police station Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa against the petitioner and his family members regarding dowry demand and harassment. On which the final report has been submitted. The incident of Bilaspur has been mentioned in it. But the report has been made in another District-JanjgirChampa. Whereas the point of alleged dowry demand and harassment has been stated to be of the period when the respondent/wife - Smt. Priyanka Rathore was out of District -Janjgir-Champa. Further, the petitioner/ husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Bilaspur where wife -Smt. Priyanka Rathore is also to be present. The respondent/wife Smt. Priyanka Rathore under the influence of her relatives has made a false report in the District- Janjgir-Champa with the intention of harassing the petitioner and his family members and the case is pending in the Court. The family members of the petitioner who are accused and most of the witnesses are residents of Bilaspur. That's why it will be convenient for everyone to proceed with the trial in the court of Bilaspur. Therefore, the "Criminal Case in question" may be ordered to be transferred to the Court of Sessions Division, Bilaspur.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application and submitted that the father of respondent- Smt. Priyanka Rathore has received threats for cash from the petitioner over the phone and her father has been forced to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh Rupees) in the account of the petitioner from time to time. She could not go to Bilaspur for the report as she was threatened for life by the petitioner/husband and his family members. She cannot go to Bilaspur even for the trial because she is in danger of her life. Many of the witnesses in the case are residents of Champa and the disputes between the parties have also arisen in Champa. Thus, the report written by him in Janjgir-Champa under section 178 of IPC, is appropriate to proceed in the same court. Therefore, the petition for transfer may be dismissed.

¶20

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival

¶22

submissions and also went through the record.

¶23

Regarding the transfer of a criminal case, the provision under section 407 of the Cr.P.C. is as follows:-

¶24

“ 407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.-

¶25

(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-

¶26

(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or

¶27

(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or

¶28

(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice,

¶29

it may order-

¶30

(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under Sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;

¶31

(ii) that any particular case, or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;

¶32

(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or

¶33

(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.”

¶34

No objection has been raised before me on the point of fair trial in this

¶35

matter. Rather, the basis of transfer has been stated regarding the convenience of the parties and the origin of the cause of action and it has been opposed.

¶36

What should be the jurisdiction of the court? On this point, the provisions of Section 177 and Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. are as follows:-

¶37

“177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

¶38

178. Place of inquiry or trial.- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

¶39

¶40

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or

¶41

¶42

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. ”

¶43

It is clear from the provision of Section 178 of IPC that where criminal acts have been committed in more than one place, the court of any of those places gets jurisdiction to try them.

¶44

The case in hand, it is clear from the perusal of the written complaint filed before the police station by respondent No. 2/wife -Priyanka Rathore that the petitioner is a resident of Bilaspur, while the respondent/wife- Smt. Priyanka Rathore is a resident of Police Station Champa. According to the report, she has been living in Bilaspur for a long time with her in-laws. It is also mentioned that the petitioner/husband used to extend threats to the father of the respondent/wife by demanding cash amount on mobile phone and her father also deposited about 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in the petitioner's account from time to time. Thus, according to the criminal acts that have been extended through the phone calls to the father of the respondent/wife and the father of the respondent/wife residing in the area of Thana-Champa, based on this, the jurisdiction of Thana-Champa has been mentioned. In this case, if the criminal act continues within more than one jurisdiction, it will be on the reporter to choose where to report and where the trial will take place.

¶45

Apart from this, looking to the list of witnesses available in the final report of the police attached to the record, then out of a total of witnesses, more than half of the witnesses are residents of Police Station-Champa. Those witnesses will be facilitated to appear in the Champa area Court during the trial. While the parties are familiar with each other, it will not be necessary that every accused should be present in the Court on every date.

¶46

¶47

In the above situation, when the cause of crime has arisen in the jurisdiction of Champa police station and from the point of view of convenience, there will be convenience in trial in District-Janjgir Champa Court, then the case should be transferred to Sessions Division, Bilaspur, this submission is not found reasonable and acceptable.

¶48

Accordingly, looking to the above-stated reasons, the present petition is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶51

H.L. Sahu

Mukesh Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sant Lal @ Santoo and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamleshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rajat Prafulla Pashine Vs Smt Shubha Rai @ Shubha Rajat Pashiney

Santosh Kumar Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Somaru Harijan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gyani @ Gyan Singh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh