JUDGMENT Dr. Pratibha Upasanl, J.
1. Heard Advocates.
2. Rule. Ms. Kantharia, learned A.P.P.. appearing for the respondent-State and Mr. Deshmukh, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing.
3. This criminal writ petition is filed by the mother of the original complainant, who is the victim of gang rape. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the accused who are at present lodged in Yeravada Central Prison. The alleged incident of gang rape took place in village Dhalaj, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, on 24.2.1999.
4. It appears from the proceedings that after the alleged incident of gang rape, the victim Sanglta was threatened by one of the accused, namely, respondent No. 2 Balu Khartode. Thereafter, the house of Sangita was torched by the accused and this case is not committed to the Court of Sessions. The family of Sanglta which consists of her disabled father and mother alongwlth her siblings, was forced to leave the native place and now they are residing in Mumbai. It also appears that father of Sangita, who is a retired postman, is suffering from spondylitis while the mother (.e., the petitioner Sonabai Jagtap is doing all sorts of odd jobs as maid-servant in Mumbai. The prayer of the petitioner is that they are poor, that they were once upon a time a respectable family but now because of the Incident of gang rape and torching of their house, they do not want to go back to their native place. They are also afraid of the accused who are landlords and have both muscle as well as money power. The contention of the petitioner is that going to Baramati several times to attend the trial would be extremely difficult for them, that their place of residence has also been torched and has been reduced to dust by the respondents and, therefore, in the interest of Justice, Sessions Case No. 14 of 2000. in which respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are accused, be transferred to Mumbai.
5. Mr. Milind Deshmukh, appearing for the respondents/accused is opposing the prayer for transfer of the said Sessions Case to Mumbai on the ground that the witnesses are from Baramati, the Doctor is at Pune and at the most, and if at all necessary, the case be tranferred to Pune and not to Mumbai.
6. I have heard both the Advocates at length and also Ms. Kantharta, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State who states that she will submit to the orders of the Court.
7. Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 lays down that the High Court has power to transfer cases and appeals on certain grounds. The relevant clause of Section 407 reads as follows :
"407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals. Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court -
(a) .....
(b) .....
(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) .....
(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) .....
(iv) ....."
18. Thus, section 407 confers power on the High Court to transfer cases under certain circumstances which are enumerated in the said section. In the present case at hand, grounds are certainly made out by the petitioner to transfer Sessions Case No. 14 of 2000 from Baramati to Mumbai in the Interest of justice and also for the convenience of the parties.
9. As the facts have emerged, it does appear that the Incident of gang rape of victim Sangita took place In the village where the family of the victim was then residing. Prima facie, it does appear that she was threatened by one of the accused after the incident, her family - which was once a respectable family in the village - was forced to flee from their native place and take shelter in Mumbai . Her residential house was torched by the accused who have both muscle and money power, and the case of the torching incident is going on. Therefore, in the interest ofjustice, it would be proper if Sessions Case No. 14 of 2000 is transferred from Baramati to the Sessions Court at Mumbai. In view of this, following order is passed :
ORDER Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. Sessions Case No. 14 of 2000, pending on the files of the Sessions Judge, Baramati. be transferred to the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai. Rule is accordingly made absolute.
Writ to go down immediately.