Anju Kumari v. Subhash Kumar

Patna HC4 Apr 2025CR. MISC./39381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: transfer petition; Section 498(A) IPC; convenience/benefit of woman informant; distance ~60 km; apprehension of heckling/manhandling; Haspura P.S. Case No. 279/2022; G.R. No. 1079/2021; charge sheet and cognizance at Aurangabad; Sub-Divisional Magistrate Daudnagar; Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Jehanabad; Anju Kumari v. Subhash Kumar; Patna High Court CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39381 of 2023; decided 04-04-2025; Justice Bibek Chaudhuri; counsel Rajiv Ranjan Kr. Pandey (petitioner); counsel Pintu Kumar Patel (opposite party).

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Haspura P.S. Case No. 279/2022 (G.R. No. 1079/2021) from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad to the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jehanabad. ¶¶23

Anju Kumari Vs Subhash Kumar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Transfer of Haspura P.S. Case No. 279/2022 (G.R. No. 1079/2021) from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad to the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jehanabad.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal case (Haspura P.S. Case No. 279/2022, G.R. No. 1079/2021), arising from a Section 498(A) complaint in which the petitioner is the lady informant, should be transferred from Aurangabad to Jehanabad on account of her present residence at her paternal home, the approximately 60 km distance, her lack of income, and her apprehension of being heckled and manhandled by the opposite parties at Aurangabad.

¶¶17

Court's answer

In deciding an application for transfer of a case from one court to another, the prime consideration of the Court is the benefit of the lady who is the informant in a case under Section 498(A) of the IPC along with other coordinate provisions.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner now resides at Jehanabad, transferring the case there would cause the opposite parties no substantial difficulty, as they would have to travel only a distance of around 60 km from Aurangabad.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Haspura P.S. Case No. 279/2022, corresponding to G.R. No. 1079/2021, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, is ordered to be transferred to the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jehanabad.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous (transfer application), Patna High Court, decided 04-04-2025 by Bibek Chaudhuri, J: Anju Kumari, wife of Subhash Kumar and informant in Haspura P.S. Case No. 279/2022 (G.R. No. 1079/2021) filed under Sections 341/323/498(A)/379/504 and 34 IPC, sought transfer of the pending case from Aurangabad to Jehanabad, pleading her present residence at her paternal home at Jehanabad, the roughly 60 km distance, her lack of income and her apprehension of being heckled and manhandled by the opposite parties. Holding that in a transfer application the prime consideration is the benefit of the lady informant in a Section 498(A) case with coordinate provisions, and finding that the accused would face little difficulty attending Jehanabad at a distance of 60 km, the Court directed that the case pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad be transferred to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jehanabad, and disposed of the application accordingly. No precedent was cited; the opposite party's counsel was absent despite notice.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39381 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2022 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Anju Kumari Wife Of Subhash Kumar Resident Of Village- Paharpura, Po And Ps- Haspupra, District- Aurangabad, Presently Resides At R/O- R/O-VillRasulpur, Po- Awagila, Ps- Parasbigha, District- Jehanbad

¶5

Versus

¶6

Subhash Kumar Son of Birendra Singh R/O-Vill- Paharpura, Po And PsHaspupra, District- Aurangabad, Presently Posted At Chief Cruw Controller, Jakhapura As A Assistant Loco-Pilot, Resides At East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, Pin Code 755026, Odisha

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

======================================================

¶9

Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶12

11 04-04-2025

¶13

In spite of service of notice upon the opposite

¶14

party/accused persons, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties is not present. Therefore, the instant application is taken up in the presence of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner is the informant in connection with Haspura, P.S. Case No. 279/2022, corresponding to G.R. No. 1079/2021, filed under Sections 341/323/498(A)/379/504 and 34 of the IPC. The P.S. Haspura is within the District of Aurangabad, and on filing a charge sheet in the abovementioned case, the learned Magistrate at Aurangabad took cognizance of offence against the accused persons.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39381 of 2023(11) dt.04-04-2025 2/3

¶17

Now, it is contended by the petitioner that at the time of lodging the complaint before the jurisdictional police station, she used to reside at her matrimonial home within the jurisdiction of the Aurangabad criminal court. However, at present, she has been residing at her paternal home at Jehanabad. Jehanabad is situated at a distance of around 60 km from Aurangabad. The petitioner has no source of income, and it is difficult for her to conduct the case at Aurangabad because of the distance.

¶18

It is also further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner apprehends that if she goes to Aurangabad, she may be heckled and manhandled by the opposite parties.

¶19

I have duly considered the submission made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner.

¶20

In order to decide an application for transfer of a case from one court to another, the prime consideration of the Court is the benefit of the lady who is the informant in a case under Section 498(A) of the IPC along with other coordinate provisions. Considering the fact that the petitioner has now been residing at Jehanabad and all the opposite parties will not have much difficulty attending the court at Jehanabad, traveling a

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39381 of 2023(11) dt.04-04-2025 3/3

¶22

distance of 60 km. The case being Haspura P.S. Case No. 279/2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 1079/2021 pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad be transferred to the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jehanabad.

¶23

The instant application is thus disposed of.

¶24

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶25

Suraj Dubey/-

¶26

U T

Anju Kumari v. Subhash Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Kumari v. Subhash Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noor Zafar @ Noor Zaffar Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Bihari Singh Vs the State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Khagaria

Saurabh Suman Vs the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Dept., Bihar, Patna

Atul Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar through Its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar

Kirti Kumari @ Keerti Vs The State of Bihar

M/s D.V.M. Protech Vs The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary Home Department of Bihar