IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7485 of 2006 SUBHASH CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 12 24.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears for Opposite party no.2. In the instant application the petitioner prays for transfer of Complaint Case No.C-1137 of 2005 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(West),Muzaffarpur to any competent court in the district of Vaishali. The petitioner is facing prosecution in a case under sections 498A, 323, 307 and 504 of the Penal Code filed by his wife Anita Chaudhary, Opposite party no.2, being Complaint Case No.C- 1137 of 2005 at Muzaffarpur. The petitioner has sought transfer of the case from Muzaffarpur to Vaishali on the ground that no cause of occurrence took place at Muzaffarpur and all the allegations leading to the filing of the aforesaid case took place in the district of Vaishali. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in the case of Bhura Ram & Ors Vs State of Rajasthan, 2008 PLJR 367(SC) as well as in the case of Abraham Ajith, 2004(8)SCC 100. There is no dispute to the proposition that the case can be filed only at a place where cause of occurrence took place. It is also settled that if cause of action took place at two different places or districts then a case can be filed at any of the two places. 2 In this case notice was issued to Opposite party no.2 on 30.3.2006. However, the proceeding of the case was not stayed. Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the State submits that there can be no dispute to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. He submits that it will appear from perusal of the complaint petition that cause of occurrence has been shown both in the district of Vaishali as well as Muzaffarpur. He by referring to the complaint petition submits that the complainant had stated that from the gift money which was received from her father, the petitioner by playing fraud got a land and house constructed with his own name where he along with his family members are residing. It has been further alleged in the complaint that the accused persons used to torture her there also. Learned counsel for the State submits that the house which is referred to at page 4 of the complaint petition is the house constructed in Shanti Vihar Colony, P.S. Kanti, District Muzaffarpur. He further submits that the aforesaid facts would appear from a case filed by the complainant being Maintenance Case No.110 of 2005, as contained in Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Opposite Party no.2 has contacted a second marriage and has opened a Beauty Parlour and mysteriously has stated that she was tortured in a house at Muzaffarpur. This court for the present would not go into the merit of the case. Suffice it to say that prima facie it cannot be said that no 3 KHAN cause of action took place at Muzaffarpur. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to transfer the case from Muzaffarpur to the District of Vaishali and as such the revision application is dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)