Smt. Uma Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TPCR No. 23 of 2015 • Smt. Uma Yadav W/o Santosh Kumar Yadav, Aged About 26 Years R/o - C/o Kapil Narayan Yadav, New Puraina Basant Park, Quarter No. P-9, Near Guru Tegbahadur Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Station House Officer Police Station - Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). • Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Sundru Ram Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o. Mahamaya Chowk, Village - Katgi, Tahsil - Kasdol, Civil & Revenue District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). • Smt. Leelabai Yadav Wd/o Late Shri Sundru Ram Yadav Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Mahamaya Chowk, Village - Katgi, Tahsil - Kasdol, Civil & Revenue District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). • Rammurti Yadav S/o Babulal Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village - Sarwani, P. S. & Tahsil - Kasdol, Civil & Revenue District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L.

For Respondent No.2 : Shri K.K.Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 & 4 : None present.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 23/11/2015 Heard on admission.

2.

Grievance of the applicant is for transfer of Criminal Case No. 235/2012 pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol, district Baloda Bazar be transferred to Raipur before any court having competent jurisdiction. Though no separate grounds have been raised by the applicant in the petition however during the argument it has been argued that two cases filed by her are already pending at Raipur and therefore the present case may also be transferred to Raipur.

3.

Opposing this submission it has been argued by counsel for the respondents that so far as the present case is concerned, the complaint was lodged at Kasdol and therefore the competent court having the jurisdiction is taking up the matter.

4.

Counsel for the respondents have further argued that no separate grounds have been taken by the applicant for transferring the present case and as such the petition is likely to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 5.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6.

In the entire petition though the applicant has not taken any separate ground seeking transfer of her case from Kasdol to Raipur however during argument the only point which have been raised is that two cases filed by the applicant are already pending at Raipur and therefore the present case may also be transferred to Raipur. Undisputedly the complaint was filed at Kasdol and the case has already been registered. No cogent ground has been raised by the applicant for transferring the present case to Raipur. The case can not be transferred simply because it is convenient to the applicant. 7.

The petition has no substance, the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge suguna