1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. SB CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.833/2010. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. DATE OF ORDER: 4th August, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma for the petitioner. Mrs.Rekha Madnani PP for the State. Mr. Sudesh Bansal for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur on Application No.2043/2009 whereby the application moved by the petitioner to transfer the criminal case arising out of the FIR No.543/2009 Police Station Chomu and pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu District Jaipur to any other competent court at Jaipur has been rejected. Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner is the wife and non-petitioner no.2, 3 and 4 are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the petitioner. A report was lodged by the petitioner against the respondents in the police station Chomu. On the report, FIR No.543/2009 was registered for the offence under sections 498A 2 and 406 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 13.11.2009 that is pending trial. An application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge for transferring the case from Chomu to Jaipur with the averments that the respondents have threatened the petitioner that if she comes to Chomu for attending the court proceedings, she will be killed and also that her father is an old and sick person and there is nobody to accompany her to Chomu for attending the court proceedings. A reply to the application was filed wherein it was stated that the first date after filing charge-sheet was 14.4.2010, therefore, the averment made by the petitioner in the complaint that she had been threatened is wrong. In the reply it was also stated that the entire family of the non-petitioners was involved in the false case. The learned Sessions Judge finding all allegations baseless, rejected the application. Hence, the present petition has been filed. It has been the contention of the learned counsel that in the interest of justice the petition was liable to be allowed. It is also contended that the petitioner is a lady and there is nobody in the family to help her, therefore, also her application was liable to be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that absolutely frivolous complaint has been filed. On previous occasion also she made such type of allegations but could not prove the same. It is also contended that in the case of Pariminder Kaur (Smt.) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 another- (2007)15 SCC 307 in the similar circumstances the transfer application moved by the wife was rejected. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is to be seen that the learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the entire matter on the basis of allegations and counter allegations made by the parties in their applications moved found that the case was not fit one for transfer, therefore, did not transfer the case. In Parminder Kaur (Smt.) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “The first ground urged by the petitioner is that if the petitioner has to go to Rampur to attend the proceedings in the trial court, her safety would be in danger or she apprehends physical harm to herself from Respondent 2 or anti-social elements. This is too nebulous a ground for transferring the cases from the trial court, Rampur to the court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi or Chandigarh. The petitioner has not substantiated her apprehension of threat or bodily harm or intimidation from respondent 2 or other anti- social elements as alleged by her.” In the present case also identical allegations have been stated in the application moved by the petitioner for transfer of her case, but there does not appear any material in support of her allegations. The question of threatening in the present case could not have happened earlier as on the first date of hearing of the case, this application was moved before the court. 4 In the over all facts and circumstances of the case, finding no substance in the submission of the learned counsel, this petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this misc. petition is dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK),J BBLM