Suruchi Sharma Vs Sanjeev Kumar

2026:JHHC:5733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 23 of 2025

Suruchi Sharma, aged about 53 years, w/o Sri Sanjeev Kumar, R/o Krishana House, Buxidih Road, P.O. and P.S. – Giridih, District – Giridih.

¶4

….. Petitioner Versus

¶5

Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Shri Krishna Dev Singh, R/o Road No. 11, Kurji Kothiya, Vikas Nagar, P.O. – Sadquat Ashram and P.S. – Digha, District – Patna, Bihar.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE M	….. Opp. Party --------- R. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------
For the Petitioner	: Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate. Ms. Sakshi Charu, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party	: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate. Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Dhruva Kumar, Advocate. ---------

¶7

Order No. 13/Dated: 26^th February, 2026

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The instant transfer petition (criminal) has been filed under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for transfer of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 189/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1775 of 2015, registered under Sections 498(A), 325, 494, 379, 34 of the I.P.C. from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih to any court of equal or superior jurisdiction in the district of Ranchi.

¶10

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that the marriage between petitioner and opposite party was duly solemnized on 26.02.2001 at Phusro, Bokaro according to the Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, petitioner’s father gave Rs. 9,00,000/- in cash as dowry and spend about Rs. 5,00,000/- in the marriage, but the husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the same. Thereafter, the

¶11

1

¶12

2026:JHHC:5733

¶13

father of the petitioner had given Rs. 90,000/- by way of draft and Rs. 40,000/- in March, 2002, but the attitude of the husband and in-laws was not changed and they used to torture the petitioner mentally and physically. In the year 2005, the husband of the petitioner had filed a suit for divorce at Civil Court, Ranchi, but after appearance of petitioner in that case on 02.02.2007, the husband of the petitioner had withdrawn the divorce case and assured the petitioner that in future he would never torture her and even after that, petitioner was being tortured regularly by her husband and in-laws by several ways. Thereafter, after death of father and mother of the petitioner, the torture was gone to its high level and on 10.08.2014, the husband of the petitioner and her mother-in-law had assaulted her and as a result of which, her hand was fractured and they had snatched her entire ornaments. It is further alleged that the husband of the petitioner had solemnized second marriage with one Niharika, who is the resident of Sitamarhi, at the instance of her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sisterin-law and husband of sister-in-law. It is further alleged that the father of the petitioner had gifted one flat at Ranchi to the petitioner and her husband wants to grab the same. It is further alleged that the in-laws of the petitioner has threatened to kill her.

¶14

On the basis of aforesaid written report of informant, Suruchi Sharma (petitioner herein), FIR being Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 189/2015 dated 07.06.2015 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 498A/325/494/420/495/34 of I.P.C. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 18.03.2016 by the Investigating Officer under Sections 498A/325/494/420/495/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present opposite party and other accused persons and thereafter cognizance was taken under Section 498(A)/325/494/420/495/34 of I.P.C. against the ten accused persons

¶15

2

¶16

2026:JHHC:5733

¶17

including the opposite party by the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih on 30.03.2016, but the FIR against nine accused persons has been quashed vide order dated 17.08.2022 in Cr.M.P. No. 1094/2016 and in Cr.M.P. No. 1815/2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court and only husband of the petitioner namely, Sanjeev Kumar (opposite party herein) is facing trial.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is the wife of the opposite party. It is further submitted that after framing of charges against the husband of the petitioner, out of 13 charge-sheeted witnesses, 06 witnesses have been examined and 07 witnesses are yet to be examined, who are being threatened by the inlaws of the petitioner and are forced to give evidence in the favour of her husband.

¶19

It is further submitted that petitioner is residing in her in-laws house in Giridih and is being abused and threatened by her in-laws and tortured mentally and physically, and as such, she is feeling inconvenient to appear before the trial court in Giridih.

¶20

It is further submitted that the father-in-law of the petitioner namely, Krishna Dev Singh, is an advocate in the district bar, therefore, no lawyer is ready to take brief of the petitioner and hence, there is no chance of getting fair and impartial trial.

¶21

It is further submitted that the petitioner has her paternal house in Ranchi where her brother stays with his family and petitioner can also stay along with her brother and his family in her parental house and as such, it will be convenient for the petitioner to appear before the court, if the case is transferred to any court of equal or superior jurisdiction in the district of Ranchi. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Apex Court i.e. Abdul Nazar Madani Vs. State of T.N. and Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 204 .

¶22

3

¶23

2026:JHHC:5733

¶24

Learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the present transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner on 30.07.2025 for transfer of her case from Giridih Civil Court to Ranchi Civil Court after lapse of 10 years from the date of institution of F.I.R. at the fag end of the trial without assigning any valid reasons only with a view to delay the trial of the case. The trial of the case is going on and almost half of the prosecution witnesses including the informant (present petitioner) and Investigating Officer have been examined and if the case is transferred from Giridih to Ranchi district, the smooth trial of the case will be hampered.

¶25

It is further submitted that the opposite party has been staying away from his paternal house at Giridih for last fifteen years and currently, he is staying at Patna (Bihar) and has been contesting the case regularly by travelling from Patna to Giridih Court, whereas the petitioner has been residing in the paternal house of the opposite party prior to the institution of F.I.R. till date with the brother of the opposite party namely, Kaushlendra Sharma, who has been examined as P.W.3 in this case. Therefore, the instant transfer petition has no merit and is fit to be dismissed. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon the judgment of Apex Court i.e. Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another Vs. Mrs. Rani Jethmalani reported in (1979) 4 SCC 167 .

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. From perusal of record, it appears that in terms of order dated 04.12.2025, status report of the case was called for. From perusal of the same, it appears that till 08.12.2025, altogether five witnesses have been examined in this case and eight witnesses have yet to be examined and the last witness

¶27

4

¶28

2026:JHHC:5733

¶29

was examined on 12.02.2025. The expected time frame as prayed by the learned trial court to conclude the trial is five months i.e. April, 2026.

¶30

It further appears that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate how and in what manner, she will be prejudiced if the trial continues in the court at Giridih. The effort of the petitioner in filing the instant petition after 10 years of lodging of F.I.R. is only to delay the proceedings. Since investigation in this case has been concluded, charge sheet has been filed, trial of the case is going on and the large number of witnesses in the case are residents of the Giridih district and therefore it will be wholly irrational to transfer the case from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih to the court of equal or superior jurisdiction in the district of Ranchi only on the basis of hypothetical threat perception of petitioner based on bald allegation.

¶31

The transfer of criminal cases should be rare and exceptional. Mere, convenience of the petitioner would not suffice, but also convenience of the Witnesses of the Prosecution besides the larger issue of trial being conducted under the jurisdictional Court should be taken into account. When relative convenience and difficulties of all the parties involved in the process are taken into account, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to make out a genuine case for transfer in another District. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanna Kasini Vs. State of Telangana & Another; Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7038 of 2025 has held at Para-8 that :-

¶32

“8. Primarily, it cannot be said that merely because the relative of the wife is a Head Constable and another is working in the District Court, there would be a bias against the husband, especially when the adjudication is carried out by the Judge. …………………………….”

¶33

5

¶34

2026:JHHC:5733

¶35

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the factual aspects of the case, as discussed above, I am not inclined to transfer Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 189/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1775 of 2015, registered under Sections 498(A), 325, 494, 379, 34 of the I.P.C from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih to any court of equal or superior jurisdiction in the district of Ranchi.

¶36

So far contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father-in-law of the petitioner is an advocate in the district bar and no lawyer is ready to take brief of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner may approach DLSA, Giridih for legal aid.

¶37

If the petitioner files an application before the DLSA, Giridih for legal aid, the Secretary, DLSA, Giridih is directed to provide proper legal assistance to the petitioner.

¶38

Accordingly, the present transfer petition (criminal) is dismissed .

¶39

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶40

February 26, 2026 Sunil/ Uploaded on : 27/02/2026

¶41

6

Suruchi Sharma v. Sanjeev Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suruchi Sharma v. Sanjeev Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hareyram Rawani Alias Hareram Kumar Rawani Vs Punam Kumari Alias Devi

Darshan Mandal Alias Sarshan Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khushboo Kumari Vs Amit Kumar Verma

Md. Ali Hussain Alias Ali Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Mahato Alias Ajay Kumar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Das @ Umesh Kumar Das Vs State of Jharkhand