1‘ ‘w‘ 0% @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIILASPUR: . ' Tr. Pet. (Criminal) No. 05/2008 Rakesh Diwan (Advocate), aged about 42 years, S/o Late Shri Kuleshwardhar Diwan, R/o‘Shiv Chowk Ramsagarpara, Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtali—(C.G.). PETITIONER (rw RESPONDENTS ' Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtar (C.G.). V L Aishwardhar Diwan ‘Aged about 2 1/2 years S/o Shri Rakesh Diwan, Through natural guardian mother Asha Diwan. Vishal Diwan, aged about 4 years, S/o Shri Rakesh Diwari, through natura guardlan mother Asha Diwan Asha Dlwan W/o Shrl Rakesh Dlwan, aged about 28 years Respondent Nos. 2, 3 8a 4 are R/o Dak Bangla Ward, Dhamtari, Distt. I Dhamtari (C.G.) (Name of respondent No 4 has been.» v wrltten as “Asha Kashyap 1n the varlous documents of State authorltres- as well as in criminal Case pending before J.M.F.C. Dhamtari. .TRANSFER‘ ’ETITION U/s 407 or THE CODE or CRIMINA PROCEDURE. ' (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shrl Shrawan Agrawal Advocate for the petltloner , , Shrl D K Gwalare G A along w1th Shri U K S Chanl for the State Respondents No. 2 to 4 (not notlced). . ORAL ORDER (Passed on .1 1/4/2008) This petition under Section 407 Of the Cr.P.C. 1973 is filed for transfer of M.Cr?.C’ NO. 403/05 from First Additional Principal i l i L de P L , Judge, Family Court Raipur, Camp Damtari, to any other criminal Court on the ground that fair and impartial hearing is not possible. Counsel for the parties heard. Copy of the order—sheets of the Judge, Family Court perused. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that applicant is Lawyer. Court is acting in hasty manner, not fair in the proceeding. Fair and impartial hearing is not possible. Maintenance proceeding is pending before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, Camp Court Durg. On 8/2/08 Judge, Family Court had heard non- applicant in absence of applicant and case post for order later on objection relating to DNA test was filed on behalf of the applicant and case posted for 25/2/2008 but again at 5.15 p.111. interim application and reply was filed on behalf qf the non—applicant same was taken into record by the Court. On 25/2/2008 signature on the - alleged application was taken by the Judge'Family Court also on 5/3/2008 non—applicant was heard in absence of applicant. Criminal case against the non-applicant No. 4 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damtari and Court is required to take judicial notice and acts in accordance with the finding of the ~ criminal Court. Criminal case from one Court to another Court cannot be transferred unless it is prima facie shown on behalf of the applicant that fair and impartial trial would not be possible in this present circumstances. In the present case applicant has tried to show that v opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the applicant and Court has heard non-applicant, even in absence of applicant. Court is biased towards applicant and Court has not taken cognizance of the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,_ Damtari. Present case is pending before the Family Court where lawyers are not permitted to represent their party. Applicant is a lawyer having knowledge of the procedure of the Court. Applicant had not appeared at the time of hearing before the Court but despite of his absence learned Judge had not proceeded eX-parte against him. The criminal case and instant petition for maintenance are not identical. Judge, Family Court is not required to act‘in accordance with the finding of the criminal Court, Only on the ground of some discrepancy in proceeding. It is not possible to infer that Court is biased or fair and‘impartial trial would not be possible before the Court. Applicant has not able to make out the case that trial before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, Camp Damtari would not be fair and impartial. Consequently, the petition is deserves to be dismissed and-it is hereby dismissed.