Mohd. Sufiyan And ANR. v. The State Of C.G. And ANR.
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT Q5LCHHATTISGARH AT
"- BILASPUR , o'»^i "ptKK TRANSFER CASB-jCRIMINAL) N0.
§l^gi@S^^h 1.
Mohd.
Sufiyan S/o Usman caste Momm aged about years R/o Dabripara, Baikunthpur, Thana & Tahsil Baikunthpur District Koriya £/ & ^^r^i £^S1S^'
..-••"
fC.G.) 2.
Ajija 'o Faisal D/o
1. Sufiyan aged about 30 years Caste Momin, Dabripsra, Baikunthpur, Th&na & hpur, District Koriya (G.G.) do-n p lo\\->~ia 1.
The State of C.G. through District Magistrate Durg (C.G.) ^'•.
2.
Faisal Khan Caste Musalman aged about 47 years S/o Late Abubkar R/o Behind Kohka Uttsav Mangal Bhawan, Police Station Supela Supela Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) Durg (C.G.) Civil District Durg (C.G.) Revenue District Suoela District ir ^-/. \JS Police Station 'J-'^
Crime No.
684/2012 Offence U/s 506, 5078534ofIPC Challan has been filed and Status Criminal Case No. 3/2013 pending before the CJM Durg District Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 407 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973
HiGH COURTOFCHHAmSGARHAT BtLASPUR PETITIONER Mohd. Sufiyan & another State of Chhattisgarh another RESPONDENTS APPLICATION UNDER SECTiON 407 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for Responderrt No.1 - State. Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate, for Respondent No.2. (Sinsle Bench : Hon'ble Mr. P. Sam Koslw. J.) (20-02-2014) Heard.
By way of the present petjtion, the petitioners have sought for a reKeS of transferring of Criminal Case No.3/2013 pending in the Court pf Chief Judiciat Magistrate, Durg, to the eompetent Court at Baikunthpur District. ;- According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 is the husband of petitioner No.2 (^ija) and son-in-law of petitioner No.1 (Mohd. Sufiyan). Petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 were married with each other under theMuslim customs and law some six years back. in due coyrseof time, their relationship gotstrained. Therefore, they startedlivingseRa'atelywfth each other.
Subsequently, petitioner No.2 has filed a complaint against respondent No.2 for offence punishable under Section 498-Aof IPC and for which a ease is also pending in the Courtin Baikunthpur Distrjd. (5) Thereafter, it is stated that respondent No.2 has also filed a complaint against the petitioners at Police Station-Supela, Distt. Durg and, after investigation, Police Station-Supela has registered a Crime No.684/2012 against the present petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 506, 507 read with Section 34 of IPC and challan has also been filed. The said case has been registered as Criminal Case No.3/2013 and is pending in the Court ofChief Judiciat Magisirate, Durg. It is this case which the petitioners v
-2want to get transferred to Baikunthpur District Court. (6) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since a criminal case for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is already pending against respondent No.2 in the Court in Baikunthpur District, the present case which has been initiated before the Chief Judiciat Magistrate, Durg and registered as Criminal Case No.3jf2013, may also be transferred to thecompetent Court at Baikunthpur District. (7) On perusal ofthe pleadings that have brought by ie petitiona-s in their petition, there does not appear to be any sufficient reason shown by the petitioners as to why the case should be transferred to the competent Court in Baikunttipur District. Neitherany strong ground is reflected ia the pleadings so as to establish that in the event if the eriminal case that is pending inthe Court ofChiefJudicial Magistrate, Durg, is continued at Durg what prejudice woutd be caused to respondent No>2 or how the petitioners would be adversely affected.
The sote ground of the petitioners is that since tie petitionere have atready fited a criminal case for offence punishable ynder Section 498-A of IPC against respondent No.2 in Baikunthpur District, for convenience sake the criminal case which has been filed by respondent No.2 ^ainst the petitioners and is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, should be transferred to the Court in Baikunthpur DistriGt. (9) The said ground raised gnd challenged by the ^ietitionere cannofr be a suffident ground for transferring a case simply from one Districtto another District. Even ifwe see the provisions of Seetion4&7 of GrPG, it cleariy says that only when the High Courtfincb that a fair andimpartial inquiry of trial cannot be heid in subordinate Court and frien powers? under Section 407 of CrPC should be invoked. In ttie instent case, no such ground has been either pleaded or established or substantiated by t!ie petitioners so as to invoke the powers of this Court under Sectiore 407ofCrPC.
(10) From the reading of the proceedings that have drawn before the two Courts below, would itself establish that both the proceedings are two independent proceedings being drawn in respect crf favo separate y
^^-^.
-3incidents that occurred on two difFerent dates. Therefore.no fruitiul purpose would be served in the event if the present case i.e. CBminal Case No.3/2013 which is pending in the Court o( Chief Judicial Magistrate. Durg, is transfeired to the competent Court in .Baikunthpur Disfrict.
(11) AII the other grounds pleaded by the pet'tioners are not very specific but are all vague grounds which cannot be sufficient tor exercising of powers under Sectlon 407 of CrPC by this Court. (12) For the foregoing reasons, since sufficient g'ounds not have beera established by the petitioners for transferring of Criminal Case, No.3/2013 (pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg) to the competent Court in Baikunthpur District, the instent transfer petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. (13) The transfer petition thus fails and isacGordingly dismissed.No order as to costs.
Sd/- P.Sam Koshy ISkfl Ik.aK).