1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Dharmisthaben vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|20 June, 2012
The present application has been filed by the applicant-wife for the prayer that the criminal case bearing No. 1559/2008 pending before the learned JMFC, Mehamedabad in pursuance of the FIR being C.R. No. I-0/2008 registered at Mehamedabad Police Station, Kheda, may be transferred to the court of learned JMFC, Vadodara. There is a civil litigation also which is pending.
2. The ground for such transfer is that the FIR has been filed at Vadodara for the alleged offence under sec. 498A, 506(2) and 114 of IPC which came to be registered as '0' in the C.R. at Vadodara Police Station and was transmitted to Mehamedabad Police Station as the cause of action or the offence was within the jurisdiction of the local police station of Mehamedabad. The submission made is that the applicant is a female and therefore she would have to travel a distance of 75 kms from Vadodara City where she is staying at the parental house.
3. Though it is not mentioned, a reference may be made to sec. 407 of CrPC which reads as follows:
407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.- (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court -
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or
(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order-
(i)that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;
(ii) that any particular case, or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;
(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial of to a Court of Session; or
(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.
4. None of the grounds which have been mentioned in this application can be said to have been covered by this provision. In fact, the inconvenience of a litigant or a complainant cannot be a ground to confer jurisdiction on the court which may not otherwise have the jurisdiction.
5. Moreover, the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 407 reads:
"Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him."
6. Therefore such a prayer cannot be entertained easily. Moreover, it would also have to be considered with regard to the administrative difficulties and convenience of the I.O. as well as other witnesses if such cases are to be transferred easily.
7. Therefore, such prayer cannot be entertained and the present application deserves to be rejected and accordingly stands rejected.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn) Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Dharmisthaben vs State


High Court Of Gujarat

20 June, 2012