Patna High Court
Smita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 11 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36912 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2021 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE
District- Munger
======================================================
Smita Devi W/O Dina Nath Singh R/O Birpur, P.S-Birpur, District-Supaul.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Bihar
2. Pawan Kumar S/O Shivsharan Ram R/O Birpur, P.S-Birpur, District-Supaul.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Saurav, Mr. Avinav Alok Advocate
Mr. Priyajit Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 11-08-2022
This application has been filed for transfer of Complaint
Case No. 122C/2021 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 st
class, Munger to any competent Court at Birpur or any other
competent court under Supaul Sessions Division.
Petitioner is one of the accused of Complaint case no.
122C/2021 which has been filed by opposite party no.2. As per the
complaint, two cheques issued by the petitioner in favour of
opposite party no.2 got dishonoured on account of 'exceed
arrangements', pursuant to which complaint was filed and
therefore cognizance of the offence was taken under section 138 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act and summons were issued to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 36912 of 2021 dt.11-08-2022
petitioner vide order dated 23.2.2021 by the Court of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Munger.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the complainant and the petitioner both are old residents of
Birpur and run Customer Service Point (CSP) of Central bank of
India at Birpur and also do the work of property dealer at Birpur
area having bank accounts at Birpur. He further submits that
because of previous annoyance, complainant intentionally
presented the cheques in question at Munger only for harassing the
petitioner because Munger is far from Birpur. Besides this, all the
witnesses of the case are residents of Birpur and the court of
competent jurisdiction is also available in Birpur. Learned counsel
submits that the petitioner is a lady and there is no one in the
family of the petitioner to accompany her while travelling to
Munger in course of pursuing the case time and again required by
the court.
Per contra, learned counsel representing opposite party
no.2 by filing counter affidavit controverts the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that in fact
cheques in question were dishonored in bank situated at Munger.
He further submits that material witnesses are residents of district
Munger. Furthermore, inconvenience of parties cannot be a valid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 36912 of 2021 dt.11-08-2022
basis for transfer of criminal proceeding from one Court to
another. Secondly, convenience of parties does not necessarily
mean the convenience of petitioner alone. In this regard, reference
is given to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Monica Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2010 SC 103.
The law with regard to transfer of cases is well-settled.
In the case of Monika Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that "The convenience of the parties does
not mean the convenience of the petitioner alone who approaches
the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience
for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the
prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of
the society".
More so, inconvenience cannot be a valid basis for
transfer of criminal proceeding from one Court to another under
section 407 of the Cr.P.C. Contention of the petitioner regarding
inconvenience is wholly frivolous. It is un-understable that a plea
of inconvenience can be ground to avoid travelling distance of
merely few kilometers even if it is assumed that a couple of hours
would be consumed for travelling to and fro. This inconvenience
would not be such an basis for seeking transfer. If such plea is
accepted, provisions contained in Cr.P.C. conferring jurisdiction,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 36912 of 2021 dt.11-08-2022
would become meaningless. In this case, entire transaction (the
cheques in question being bounced) took place in the bank of
Munger. Besides this, the complainant and material witnesses are
residents of Munger. Simply because the petitioner and some of
the witnesses are resident of Birpur, cannot be a ground for
transfer of the case.
In view of the above discussions as well as the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of Monica
Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), all grounds on which petitioner
seeks transfer of the case are unsustainable.
The transfer petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed
accordingly.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Shashi
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 3.8.2022.
Uploading Date 16.8.2022
Transmission Date 16.8.2022
