v HGH COT OF cATH AT BSPR -. ‘ ‘ "‘ - ‘—"—.‘*W I UR HHTISGAR » ILAU ._‘_— Sing nch : Hon'ie Mr. T.P.Shanna J le Be b , T.. (Criminal) No. 0 007 QA mt. h Thakut, Wlo andra Prahp 'Singh. D/o C.S. hured abu 8 TakLag ot 2, years. R/o Tikripar‘ dari Roa, 'tpu, Distric Biasur (..) I Versus 1. The tate of Chhaaf rgh P.. Kardha. Disr ablrda G). g S wsgh; ihou S av tict Khm (C Prosecution Chandra Ptap singh. 8/07 neia‘” Sih, ajput,’ fage .a' ers. hela Si 'o’ - ng t, ed ha rs' - l. ~ ‘ mt‘ ' hai JB'ai ii/ VKheIa ig . 'Rajpaet'bourears “ Cndshkhar, S/d Khéla ajur, ar. Chahdrabua sic Kel‘ Sin Rajut..‘ge aboyes‘ I ’ ‘ A R13 Drrara Kavag,. Kavgrha Kbirdm (cg): . m , Kh ng R d bagt31 ya . Kn rngh Sl Fétii: Sih Rajpu ag a“?56 Yea . ’ s. Cméi vjo n shn ut,g¢;at48'y Singh . haraé n Rp aged about 29 yeg . hshn‘ , h‘an gh p.ad ut26ar n éip '‘idh; ,P.s. 'd, District aha .K d tA'nel fr te ant Mt. A. Prasa cQs o h pptiaa. Mr U.. r the respdent t r. Su Sh on or rsponden 2 . , ORL o o E R (Passed on 3O .62008) This petition has been fited for. transfer of criminal case No. 274/2007 (State Vs. Chandra Pntgap ane others) pending before th Judicial Magistrate First Class,‘Kabiidham (Kawardha) on the gmune I that the applicant who is the wife of respondent No.2 my not get fair and impartial jusdoei‘in the case registered against respondent‘No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A or the iPc. RP 9 [2 APPLIcANT QMPLJLANT S Aba Ch a, Paya d Takhar t lp 65 ' RESPONDENTS . K.S Chanda! PLfa’ on Nat/sae. M nii au cusel f ets to 6 TRAN$FER PETITION UNDER secnon 407 or THE cargo. V , , A R : e @v. 2. I Learned counselrfor-the applicant-submiis‘that the transfer of the: case is sought-on the ground that the respondent No.2 is an advocate ‘ practicing at Kawardha’and therefore, the other advocates of Kawardhe are supporting him and for this reason the applicant is not in a position’to engage any counsel at Kawardhatoget fair and impartgiai’justice. In support of his contention, leamed oounsei for the 'appiicant piaoed’ reliance on the decision of, Gujrat High Court in the matter of Pritiben Devandrakurnar Acharya Vs. State of Gujrat" in which it is held that on the ground of free adjournmems granted to the husband causing“ inconvenience and unnecessary expenses to the wife, case may be transferred to another court. He‘ also relied uponnthe decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matterof Bhawna Dlo Medan Babel and another Vs. State of M.P.2 in which it is held that if the circumstances from which it can be inferred that party entertains reasonable apprehensionthat he would not get a fair and impah'al trial and transfer'of the case is expedient for ends of justice, the case can be transferred toanother court ln thecase of Bhawna D/o Madan Babel and anther (supra) the case of the non applicant No 1 was that because of the resolution of the Bar Association condemnrng the act of the Police she was not getting a competent and surhble lawyer and rn that circumstancethe case was directed to be tra’nsterred to another place; ' Further'reliance- is placed on the decision; ofthe: Allahabad High Court in the matter of Guishan Mallik' and‘another; etc. Vs; State ofUP and another” in which‘it isvherd that iakiang into oénsideration the innuence of brother and father of the wife who were advocates and no lawyer agreed to argue the» bail application of the husband, the case can be transferred to another Court; 3. > On other hand learned counsel appearing‘for the: respondens have opposed the petlhon for transfer of the case from the Court at Kawardha to another Court 4. In the instant case the applicant lodged the report against respondents No. 2 tors who are husband and his relatives under’section 498-A of the IPC. Case wasregistered, the matter was investigated and ' charge sheet was tiled against respondent No.2 who is an advocate. On the date of hearing of bail petition, according to the order sheet some 12001 GRILL 3629 ' ’21998 (1) MPLJ 297 3 2002 Cn'.L.J. 668 - %‘, senior membe; of the _Bar_ Associatioyi, Kabirdham (KaWardha) appeared before the Coutt end requested wdHeel for the respondent No.2 thatbail applioation should be heatd on that date itself. Accordingly, request was considered; bail application was heard and non-applicant No.2 was enlarged on bail. Aftewvards, on 25.7.2007 four advocates appeared on behalf of‘the hve non-applicants to help and assist them and. due to their inhuence even the summons could not be sewed on the applicant for evidence. 5. From the documents and the order sheeE it is revelaed that on the report of the applicant the offence was registered against the non- aplicants 2 to 6 and they were later released on bail. After framing ofthe charge the applicant tiled an application for addition of the charge which was rejected. The applicant contested the case though she was not required to do so There is nothing to presume that the non applicants L have Inhuenced the Court or the prosecution Moreover on the report of the applicant the case has been registered against the non applicant No.2 and his relatives who are advocates by protesston and the charge has also been framed against them Thus in this set of circumstances it cannot be said that the applmnt may be deprived of getting fair an impartial justice m this case 6. Consequently, after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the documents available on record, l am of the opinion that for the sake of convenience of the parties, it is not a tit case for transfer ' from the Court at Kawardha to another Court and therefore, the petition I being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 7. Howeve. if the applicant feels any insecurity on the date of evidence, she may take help of Police of Kabirdham (Dawardha). Sd/— ‘ I THISPUKRNhX Judge d