IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39740 of 2008 Kalpana Jha @ Kalpan, wife of Bimlanand Jha, resident of village-Sukhsena, P.S.-Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea and presently living at North of Krishna Talkies, Ward No.5, P.S.- Birpur, District- Supaul. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Switi Kumari Jha, daughter of Manoj Kumar Mishra, resident of village-Fatehpur, P.S.-Narpatganj, District- Araria, residing at Shanti Nagar in the house of Arun Singh, P.S.-Nagar Bettiah, District- West Champaran. ……….Opposite Parties. ----------- 4. 30.11.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this application under Section 407 Cr.P.C. for transfer of Bettiah (Town) P.S. Case No.226/2006 under Sections 341, 328, 498A, 504/34 of the I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act from the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah to the court of competent jurisdiction of any other session division. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the informant, opposite party no.2. The father of opposite party no.2 Manoj Kumar Mishra was posted as Assistant Mining Officer at Bettiah at his instance, the aforesaid case was filed against the petitioner and others. The husband of the petitioner has also been threatened on 2 telephone to face the dire consequences, if he comes to Bettiah for making Pairvi of the case. On 5.07.2007, the husband of the petitioner and co-accused Bimlanand were returning after consulting his lawyer at Bettiah, then father of the opposite party no.2 attempted to manhandle him, but he anyhow managed to escape and made a Sanha petition on 6.07.2007 in the court of S.D.J.M, Bettiah. On 2.12.2002, the petitioner alongwith her husband and son went to Bettiah for attending the court, they were also threatened at the Bettiah Railway station by 4-5 unscrupulous persons sent by the father of the opposite party and a petition was filed before the S.P. on 14.03.2008. The petitioner and other members of her family are living at Birpur in the district of Supaul at a far of place. The cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and other and the case is pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M, Bettiah for the trial. They will have to attend the court regularly, but due to danger on their life from the informant side, it appears that they will not get justice by way of fair and impartial trial at Bettiah. The petitioner is a lady aged about 55 years and she is also suffering from many ailments. 3 The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the allegation made by the petitioner in this application is not correct. It is also submitted that opposite party no.2 is living with her father, who has been transferred to the district of East Champaran, Motihari. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on the record, it appears that according to the prosecution case, the place of occurrence is at Bettiah, which is neither the home place of the father of the informant nor the home place of the accused. The accused has no grievance against the court where the trial is pending. It has been alleged by the petitioner that some threatening has been given by the father of the petitioner while he was residing at Bettiah. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the informant is living with her father, who has been transferred to the district of East Champaran at Motihari. The allegation of threatening has been alleged by the petitioner while her father was at Bettiah not at Motihari. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Satish Jaggi Vrs. State of Chhatisgarh & anr. reported in (2007) 3 4 SCC 62 has considered the case of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi & ors. Vs. Miss Rani Jethmalani and in paragraph 6, it has been held as follows : “This Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, said that the grounds for the transfer have to be tested on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. It further said that even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances”. It has been further considered in paragraph 7 in the case of Abdul Nazar Madani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2000) 6 SCC 204: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1048: AIR 2000 SC 2293, which is reproduced below : “The convenience of parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience 5 of the prosecution, other accused, if any, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society”. In this case, definitely the accused and the complainant are of different places and the witnesses are of the district of West Champaran, Bettiah. Moreover, the allegation of giving threatening by the father of the opposite party to the accused was at Bettiah while he was posted at Bettiah. Now, he has been transferred to East Champaran at Motihari. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find good ground to transfer the Bettiah (Town) P.S. Case No.226/2006 from the court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah to the court of competent jurisdiction of any other session division. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)