IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46326 of 2007 JITENDRA KUMAR BHAGAT, S/o Rajendra Prasad Bhakta @ Rajendra Das Bairagi, R/o village Satha, P.S. Dewari, District Vaishali …….. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director general of Police, State of Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Commossinary, Muzaffarpur 4. The D.I.G., Tirhut Commossinary, Muzaffarpur 5. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, Hajipur 6. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur 7. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Hajipur, Vaishali 8. The Officer-in-charge, Pesari, P.S. District - Vaishali 9. The Officer-in-Charge, P.S. Rosera, Samastipur. 10. Om Prakash Mandal 11. Jai Prakash Mandal 12. Vijay Kumar Mandal, All sons of Sada Nand Mandal 13. Shila Devi, W/o Sada Nand Mandal All residents of village Panjiyar Toli, Roseral, P.S. Rosera, District – Samastipur ……. Opp. Parties ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 10 – 14 : None : O R D E R 3 20.1.2009 The legality of the order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Desari P.S. Case no. 19 of 2006 directing for the transfer of the - 2 - said case to Rosera P.S. within the Judgeship of Samastipur on the ground that the place of occurrence is Panjiyar Tola within Rosera P.S. on the representation submitted by the Investigating Officer and notwithstanding the objections raised by the informant, is sought to be questioned by the informant through this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegation is that the Investigating Officer was hand in gloves with the accused and he was not interested in investigating the case against them hence the representation by him in the Court. The impugned order is sought to be assailed primarily on two grounds: namely, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali, has not been empowered with inherent jurisdiction to transfer cases from one Sessions division to another since the sole repository thereof is the High Court and secondly that the cause of action having taken place within the jurisdiction of both Desari P.S. and Rosera P.S., the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, was fully empowered to try the case without directing for its transfer. Admittedly, under the provisions of section 407 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 227 and 325 of the Constitution of India and Clause 22 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules, it is the High Court which is vested with complete and exclusive power over the judicial hierarchy in the State with regard to their administration, superintendence and control and in exercise of such powers it can direct for the transfer of any criminal case or appeal from any court to any other court of equal or superior jurisdiction including from one - 3 - Sessions division to another Sessions division. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order has been passed in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur and cannot be sustained in law. Even the second point raised by the petitioner has also got to succeed in view of section 178 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: “178 (a) When it is uncertain in which or several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another ……… it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.” Due regard being had to the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this is a fit case which calls for interference. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)