Smt. Mukta Dewangan vs Pushpendra Dewangan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3996 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                          AFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                  Transfer Petition (Cr) No. 4 of 2021


         Smt. Mukta Dewangan W/o Shri Pushpendra Dewangan
         aged about 31 years, R/o Presently residing at
         Chatidih,     Bilaspur,       Police      Station        Sarkanda,
         Tahsil      and    Distt.         Bilaspur,       Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ­­­Petitioner

                                    Versus

       1. Pushpendra Dewangan S/o Shri Devi Datt Dewangan,
         Aged about 34 years, R/o Majhapara, Ward No. 5,
         Premnagar,        Tahsil         and      Distt.         Surajpur,
         Chhattisgarh.          Presently       residing     at    Village
         Temar,    Sakti    Post     and     Police     Station      Sakti,
         Distt. Janjgir­Champa, Chhattisgarh.

       2. State   of   Chhattisgarh          through       the     District
         Magistrate/Collector, Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur,
         Chhattisgarh.

                                                         ­­­Respondents

For Petitioner :­ Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent 1 :­ Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State :­ Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 24/06/2022

1. By way of this petition under Section 407 of

CrPC, the petitioner/wife has sought transfer of

Criminal Case No. 1780/2018 (State of

Chhattisgarh v. Pushpendra Dewangan) under

Section 498­A & 324 of IPC pending in the Court

of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur to

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that petitioner/wife has sought the aforesaid

transfer on the ground that it is difficult for

her to travel to Surajpur and the complaint under

Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 and application under Section

125 of CrPC filed by the petitioner herein are

already pending in the Court of Bilaspur.

Moreover, the respondent is also residing at

Sakti, Distt. Janjgir­Champa, therefore, it will

also be convenient for him to attend the Court

proceedings at Bilaspur, as such, the instant

petition be allowed and the aforesaid criminal

case be transferred from Surajpur to Bilaspur.

3. Per contra, Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel

for the respondent, would seriously oppose and

submit that respondent would face inconvenience

to contend the criminal case if it is transferred

from the Court of Surajpur to the Court of

Bilaspur, as such, the instant petition deserves

to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein­

above and went through the record with utmost

circumspection.

5. The issue of transfer raised herein now stands

determined by Their Lordships of the Supreme

Court in the matter of Rupali Devi v. State of

U.P.1 in which Their Lordships formulated the

question of reference in paragraph 1 of the

judgment, which states as under :­

"1."Whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members ?" This is the precise question that arises for determination in this group of appeals."

6. Their Lordships, then proceeded to consider the

aforesaid question in paragraph 14, which states

as under :­

"14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence under Section 498A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "The intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment; 1 2019 (5) SCC 384

outrage (Abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)". Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being illtreated are aspects that cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression "cruelty" appearing in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatize the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress cause by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place."

7. Finally, Their Lordships concluded in paragraph

16 as under:­

"16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code."

8. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme

Court in Rupali Devi (supra) has further been

followed by Their Lordhships of the Supreme Court

in the matter of Ruhi v. Anees Ahmad2.

9. Going by the principle of law laid down by Their

Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rupali Devi

(supra) would clearly show that as in the present

case, the petitioner/wife having driven away from

her matrimonial home at Surajpur took shelter

with her parents and started residing at her

parental home at Bilaspur, therefore, the

Bilaspur Court would also have the jurisdiction

to entertain the complaint for matrimonial

offence under Section 498­A of IPC. Considering

that the complaint under Section 12 of the Act of

2005 and application under Section 125 of CrPC

filed by the petitioner herein are already

pending in the Court of Bilaspur, the Criminal

Case No. Criminal Case No. 1780/2018 (State of

Chhattisgarh v. Pushpendra Dewangan) under

Section 498­A & 324 of IPC pending in the Court

of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur is

hereby transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bilaspur. Parties are directed to

appear before the Court of Chief Judicial 2 2020 (1) SCR 1098

Magistrate, Bilaspur on 22/07/2022. Meanwhile,

the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Surajpur will send the record of criminal case to

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur

expeditiously.

10. The instant petition is allowed accordingly.

                    Sd/­                               Sd/­
          (Sanjay K. Agrawal)               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)
                 Judge                                 Judge
Harneet