HIG. COUg‘T OF CHHATWSGRRH AT ' rnf35§ar i3nfn§3np (P Smt faeshma A Wamd": u ed ab Petitoher i banma :ngmeenng, Ha ; wara‘ nhamta”, Disri Dhamfgn ’ Versus d’ 3 W “ '. 31 Hmum, Wk“) l%ibdmuumn Ageu about 4i years WO Byron Bazar Ramur m c \ . mate OT Ch‘natiésgarh Thrbggh Di§érict _ , Maggsfrad, Ragnar (P 4"\ . . TRANSFER PETaTmN UNQER SECTaGN 4G7 OF THI: CODE OF (“mummy Danrzgl IRE @373 . Respondents Mehd. Wamédm $[G Moh Agad :abeut 38 yeazs Ric ‘ ‘ Raipur(C.G.) Shamim- Begum, is Maw.- add.“ ~ a: Age‘d'abwfi’O yeaf$, Rio B'yrcn Baz Raipur {c.G.) Qarwat B‘ ' v’c Mchd "h r.“ a Aged about 4/ years Rio Bamvapara Burg ‘rr‘ r‘ x Rumsana ”‘70 naja fvuu 1m, Aged aubut ”44 years R/o Bhllaa-3 Durg (CG) - H:samuddm, S’s Mom. NizamadAm, Aged about 44 years Klo ayron bazar Kalpur C G\ nun {SE Hon’e Mr. T. $harma, Shri Kshmz Sharma counsei fer the petitioner. Qh” U V Q Pharwe' Pane! “awym ‘o.’ t5” Stateincn—app 3N: N h Grai Qrder (.Passed cm 4‘“ Juzy, 2093) This petition has been fiied for transfer of Criminai Case No.2G9I2UG$ (btate of Lhhamsgarh v Mood irfanuddm & others) pendmq oefore the Chle‘ udrc 1 Magistrate Ralpur to toe Court of Dhamrtarl on the around that the petitioner as res ding at Dhamtarr wno as 70 kilometers away fromRalur and she te havmg ’14 months daughter. She was threatened by the h0n~appiicante No. 1 to '5‘ therefore, it wouid be in h eonvenient that the Case may be transferred to Dhamtari 31L T f: l ' e n ?“ a C . . bi P Jig u p er . 2. LearnPd ceunsel for the petztapner summts th appucanv Crlmmai Case No.2(39f20ts has been nomappiacants No‘ 1 to 6' at Raipuf far the offence D ASS-A of the IPC. The petitioner is having 14 mont {asiding atiihamtari. it is difficult far her to prosecute the casa-at-Ripur. The hun-appiicant of No. 1 to $ used to threat her. Out of 8 wimesses, 5 witnesses ai'e residents of Ehamtari, therefore, baiance of cchvehience is favour of the appiicants to transferrthe case fram Raipur r0 Dha'mtari‘. : hs";’am:& of the 3. in suppor s contentlon learned counsei for the petrtroner praced rellance on the decrsron of the Horr’bie Apex Court rn the matter of Neeiam ’Kanwar v Devrnder Smoh Kanwarq In whrch rr rs heid that takrno unto consrderatron the tact that the etrtroner rs bemg a tadv, compiarnt case was-”- tn case of Neeiam Kanwar s p transferred from Chandrqarh .O’Mumbar-i =(supra) crrmrnat compiamt was reqrstered m whrch both the parties are require o present before t e of hearrhg The instant case is registered by"?oiice and‘the petitioner is required i'den'ce' She is 4. to present before the Court for one day for grvrn resrdrng at Dhamtarr which is f0 kilometers a .r The Witnesses have not made t err grievances ven otherwrsethey are requrred to attend the Lourt hardly/one or two days. in the mstant case, no specrfro a iegatron has been made that fair and impartiai justioe wouici not be possibte. r? .. Conseq‘uentiy. after hearing the counsei for thejpetitioner anciv considering the documents availabie on record, i am of he opinionthat for the sake of convenience of the goetftioner, it ts not a fit case for transfer from the Court of Raiour to the Court of Dhamtari and therefore, the petition being without substance is iiabfe to be dismissed and it is herebv dismissed. 6. However‘ if the petitioner feeis any insecurity on the date of evidence} she may take heip of Foiice‘ of Dhamtari. 1 owe) r m‘ to soc 58§ at u? hs é in t m h 5’, t v g = wa " E .o 5