Dismissed

Archna Burman v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Nov 2024Tr.Pet.Crl/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought transfer of a criminal complaint case under Sections 147, 452, 379, 498, 504, 406/34 IPC from Koderma to Jamshedpur citing distance and aged in-laws. The court held inconvenience is inconsequential against the jurisdictional mandate; charge framed and few witnesses remain. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Transfer prayer refused; complaint case to continue at Koderma; interim order dated 25.09.2024 vacated.

Archna Burman Vs the State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 8 of 2024

¶3

----

¶4

Archna Burman, aged about 44 years, w/o Sanjay Kumar & daughter of Anil Burman

¶5

Anil Burman, aged about 76 years, s/o late Nanku Burman

¶6

Kanti Devi @ Kanti Burman, aged about 70 years, w/o Sri Anil Burman

¶7

Vikash Kumar Burman, aged about, 44 years, s/o Sri Anil Burman, all resident of Hill View Colony, House No.17, Phase-I, Dimna Road, PO & PS MGM, Jamshedpur, Dist. Singhbhum East

¶8

Manohar Lal Burman @ M.L Burman, aged about 63 years, s/o late Nanku Burman, r/o Gurudwara Road Mango, PO & PS Mango, Jamshdedpur, Dist. Singhbhum East .... Petitioner(s)

¶9

-- Versus --

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

Sanjay Kumar, s/o Sri Jagdish Prasad Swarnkar, r/v Taratand, Ward No. 14, Jhumritelaiya, PO Jhumritelaiya, PS Telaiya, Dist. Koderma

¶12

.... Respondent(s)

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

For the Appellant(s)	:-	--- Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate
For the State	:-	Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Advocate
For Resp. No.2	:-	Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate ----

¶16

06/21.11.2024

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

In this criminal transfer petition, the petitioners pray for transfer of Complaint Case No. 160 of 2017 filed by opposite party no.2 against the petitioners in which cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 147, 452, 379, 498, 504, 406/34 of the IPC which is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Koderma to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the wife of respondent no.2 and petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are the in-laws of respondent no.2. He further submits that Original Suit No. 66 of 2016 is pending at the Court of Jamshedpur in which the respondent no.2 is appearing. He further submits that Complaint Case No. 160 of 2017 is pending at the court of Koderma in view of that case may kindly be transferred to the Court of Jamshedpur as the petitioners have to

¶20

-1-

¶21

travel from Jamshedpur to Koderma to face the trial and the in-laws are the aged person(s). On this ground, he submits that the case may kindly be transferred to the court of Jamshedpur.

¶22

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 opposes the prayer on the ground that earlier petitioners have moved before this Court in Cr.M.P No. 1892 of 2019 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding which was dismissed. He further submits that Transfer petition has been filed three months earlier after dismissal of the Cr.M.P. He submits that the now the charge has already been framed; the learned court has already proceeded and even three witnesses have already been examined and two to three witnesses are required to be examined and one independent witness namely Jagdish Prasad Swarnkar is aged about 80 years. He submits that in view of the development in the court of Koderma the transfer petition can be disposed of expeditious pending before the competent court of Koderma.

¶23

In reply Mr. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only one witness has been examined and still four are required to be examined. 6. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the dispute is between husband and wife. Original divorce petition is pending at the court of Jamshedpur, however, the criminal complaint case is pending in the court of Koderma. In paragraph no.10 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 in which it has been stated that only 2-3 witnesses are remained to be examined. The charge has already been framed. One of the witness namely Jagdish Prasad Swarnkar is aged about 80 years. Criminal cases revolves around place of commission of the offence or place where the consequence of an act both of which constitute an offence in sues or place where the accused was found or place where the victim was found or place where the property in respect of which offence was committed was found. Jurisdiction of court to conduct a criminal prosecution is based on the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or BNSS . Often either the complainant or the accused have to travel across the 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.

¶24

Likewise, witnesses too may also have to travel long distances in order to depose evidence 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

¶25

-2-

¶26

the mandate of law is concerned. There is no doubt, there is no hard and fast rules to pass order of transfer of the cases, however these aspects are required to be considered on the basis of facts of each case to transfer of any particular case from one district to another. In exceptional cases that order can be passed.

¶27

In the case in hand, as deposed in paragraph no.10 of the counter-affidavit, only 2-3 witnesses are said to be further examined. Charge has already been framed. However, that is being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to remaining witness. Considering that one of the independent witness is also aged about 80 years and it will be harsh to direct to transfer the said to the court of Jamshedpur, as such transferring the case to Jamshedpur is not made out.

¶28

Accordingly, this transfer petition is dismissed.

¶29

Interim order dated 25.09.2024 is vacated.

¶30

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶31

-3-

¶32

Anjali/Cp3

Archna Burman v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archna Burman v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Pawan Kumar Bhalotia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Wasim Ahmed Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Srivastav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police

Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tija Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Bose Vs the State of Jharkhand