H'I‘GH‘eOU‘RT‘ OF WHATTISGARI'! VBILABPUR Wu Petition {Grimm No. 04.0fm” PETITIONER Rohit Kumar 'Kashyap, Slo Late Shn Ram]: Kashyap, Aged‘about /_/’26 years, R/o V111. Saral Patera P S H Lorrm, D1stt B1la§pur (C G) ’ Versus 1. State of Chhamsgarh? Through ’ PSH Lonni, Dism-Bilaspur (QG). 2. ganja Pandey, S/o Munalnl ‘ Pandey, Aged about 34 years, Rlo vm Saral Pateta, PSH berm: Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ‘ 3. Krishna Kumarr Kashyap, S/o. Shobha Ram Kashyap, Aged about 51 yaars, R/o Vlil. Swat . Pawra, PSH Lorml, Dlstt-Biimpur (CG) ‘l‘rmfaPetition underSectionm &.F£,. . Appeamnce. Shn J K Shasta, counsel for thc pctmonnr Shn Arun Sac Ggvt. Advocam for the Statz/ respondent No 1 on advance copy > " om 0mm (15.06.2oq7); ~ Sunll Kmat sinha, J. eard on admissioo. T1315 pehtwn has been filed for transfer of Sesslonsv 'I‘nal No 390/2006 (State Vs Qamm Pandey 85 ano) pendmg m the Court of Addmonal Sessmns Judge, Mungeh Dlsmctm B11aspur (C G) ' Learned counsel for the peuuoner suhmits that the _ petm'oner 1s ¢e complamaut, who ls son of the deceased. He submits that the public prosecutor as well ae counsel for the c'pmplainantvhadvtiledra applieaaons- (Wes-p] 1, P/2 as P/3) under Sections 344 an 311 of Cr.P.C. respectively 0g 30.3.07, 5.4.2007 65 10.5.2007 but the ‘eame are not ‘ H 20 2 WW M ‘ T eIVVon " 0040f2007 f bemg decnled by the mal Court and usual proceedings of the 1t. Hls further submssmn 1,5 that tnal 1s bemg conducted by the mal Court has exammed the Invesugatmg Omccr as W 15 Whereas many other mmesses are $1311 lcft to be he pmys for transfer ofthe ; exammed and on these grounds, case hum the sald Oourt showmg that the complainant (son of the deceased) appmhends that he W111 be depnved of fau' Jusnce mm the Court I have heatd leanled counsel for the penhoner at exammed the reoords of the uansfer length and have also pet'm‘on. So far as hxst application dated 30.3.2067. under t‘ has been made by Sectlon 344 CrPC m concealed counsel for the complamant for mmanng appropnate proceedmgs agamst PW 4- Sumsh Kumar 55 PW 9 -— , case of nendm Gupta because they have not supported the Whereas earlier as stated they had §1ed an prosecuuon, aEdaVIt 1n favour of the eomylamant So far as other twotapphcahons under Section 3111 Cr P C ate concerned apphcanon dated 25 4 2007 has been ‘ iilcd for glvmg penmssmn to exalmne Smt Kmhna Bel, Keshav Kashyap and Punamm, whereas other apphcatton dated 10 5 2007 has been nled by camel for the complaint for e non of Rmnkumar Gupta, Guwar Smgh Rathom, _‘ Premkumar Kashyap and Thaneshwar Kashyap t 0 The mam gnevance of the pehnoner 1s that these apphcanons ate kept pendmg and the Court 1s not tamg y dectston on these apphcattons The law W1th regatd to tmnsfer of cases 1s well settled The Apex Court heid 1n the matter of Gurucharan bass ‘ Am 1966 3.0. 1418 that a case 1s transferred 1f there 1s a reasonable app hension on, _ . thepart of a party to a case that Justlce Will not be done The } t t demonstrate that Jusuc: Will mevxtably fall. He 1s cmmnd m a _ transfer 1f he shows cuvumstanccs mm whrh 1t rem be nfemd that hecntemins :an appmhenaion and _that. xtns - masonams Vin tbs cimumstances ancgcdi‘whe Apex com further hem \that it is one of ‘the pxincipxcs Fof the K admmisuau'on ofjus1ioe that justice ghduid not onlyrhmone but it should be sem to be done. However, a marec$ega1irnn hat them is apprehension that jusu'cewxll not be» done in a given case does not suEce. The Court has furtherto see i hether the appmhension' is masonable or not. The Apex Court also sald that to Jud'rge of the reasonableness of the r appmhenslon the smte of the mmd of the person who“ entertams the apprehensmn k no doubt relevant but that 1s not all. The apprehensmn must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehensmn ItWas furtherheldby theApexCourtmthematterofr 4W, Am 1979 sc. 468mm ass i ceofafmr ‘ mal 1s the l' t mperauve of the mspensatlon of Justice and j, the cenu‘al cntenon for the comt to consader when a motion for transfer 1s made 1s not the hypersensmwty or relahve convenience of a party or easy avmlabxhty of legal semoes or hke 1mm wanoe Somethmg mom substantial, more A . compelling more unperiling hum the pomt ofvrew of pubhc ‘Jusuce and 1ts attendant envnonment, ls neeesstous 1f the Court 1s to exeme ms power ofmm This is the eardmal pnnc1p1e although the circumstances may be mynad and vaxyhomcasetocase TheApexOomgmthehctsand cucumstances of the case, smrl that the gmunds for the hausfer have to be tested on this touch-stone hearing m mind the rule that normally the complamanthas the nght to choose any Court having junsdlehon and the seeusee cannot dJctate where the case agamst mm should be tnmi It further sa1d that even so, the process of justice should not hamss V i t - w ’ tharesanthaanhourahth' cstance £ w ay e e prps n e ks ad rcums he pmet se, i c e id e compammn would t be d grod fo ‘ V inmg h an apensxon hnn I th o h urt cas fo s of s a d ou the rouds b etn o ha no me an h a - sed a th m tage; Hwer lnng o e poms ms by e pr nlmg cng ho foe the sm Co, 1t 1s d th te s1os- urt shl} 'I ¢ ppl th abov m‘cila i th ct n citances of t sn ca t annot b nferre that th comlai enuie tains n amhen tha e pnant gnly enter a ppsmn t -; oud b ee oc a uc st ote he wl e dpnvd fJusue nd sh Inances qud by ‘ th l' no treate as un r enterta suc yxeh by ove, ool t th t red th etmone‘ rega not dehn 3 apphcans m ber Sesns urt observe at h Sesn Go al d1spoe of a hoe atlos by smg appnan r s ll ts pphean pas mpt orde the acconia a on m m noe w1th lw Sd/~ SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge r ”K rr / I , y r i E L tvam 4 TransfaPWon (Criminal) No. 04 of 2007 epndmmtglctcotmywelge cuums n e prmon of tis Co; no e r mfer sessmn m] Is mae t on gn mised y the ‘ pitioer The peuun s nt d te sme ls d1sm1s t e otlon s