The High Court allowed a transfer application moving a complaint case from CJM Purnea to Sessions Katihar, citing the convenience of the petitioners wife who resided and had pending litigation in Katihar.
Transfer application is allowed; case transferred from CJM Purnea to Sessions Katihar.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9415 of 2019
In
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3779 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2010 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Son of Sri Dayanand Yadav Resident of Mohalla - Barmasiya, P.O.- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Mandal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajiv Nayan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
5 26-06-2019
This application has been filed for transfer of C.A.No.253 of 2010 from the court of CJM, Purnea to the competent court of Sessions Division of Katihar.
It further appears that O.P.no.2 has filed the Complaint Case No.2385 of 2008 which was registered under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and on the basis of which, Purnea Sadar (Mufassil) P.S.Case No.358 of 2008 was registered and later on final form was submitted and the cognizance was taken in C.A. No.253 of 2010.
Grounds for transfer of the case is that O.P.no.2 has lodged the present case and now she is residing at Katihar and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9415 of 2019(5) dt.26-06-2019 2/3
working in a Beauti Parlour and lodged three other casesKatihar Mahila P.S.Case No.19 of 2012 , pending in the court of SDJM, Katihar, and Katihar Mahila P.S.Case No.69 of 2015 filed under Section 498(A) of the IPC and other Sections of the IPC pending in the court of SDJM, Katihar and further grounds are that the maintenance case had been filed by the O.P.no.2 at Purnea, now same has been transferred to the Family Court, Katihar, vide judgment dated 7.3.2018 passed in MJC No.1678 of 2017. Further submission is that the O.P.no.2 is residing at Katihar in a room provided by the father of the petitioner. As such it will be convenient for both the parties if the complaint case is transferred to the sessions division of Katihar.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 has appeared and submitted that O.P.no.2 is now residing at Purnea and it will not be possible for her pursuing the case at Katihar, however, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has stated in his petition on oath that she is working at Katihar and other cases are also pending at Katihar, no counter affidavit has been filed by O.P.no.2 controverting the aforesaid facts.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact as mentioned above, and also considering the fact that other cases are pending in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9415 of 2019(5) dt.26-06-2019 3/3
court of SDJM, Katihar filed by O.P.no.2. As such in the interest of justice and for the convenience of both the parties, the case is transferred to the court of sessions division of Katihar.
Accordingly, this transfer application is allowed and the C.J.M., Purnea is directed to send the records of C.A.No.253 of 2010 to the sessions division of Katihar at once, which shall be transferred to appropriate court by Sessions Judge, Katihar.
With the above observation, this application is
allowed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
chn/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet/cognizance case should be transferred from CJM Purnea to Sessions Katihar for convenience of parties.
Manoj Kumar
The State of Bihar
Puja Devi
Vinod Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
