[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M-20265
20265-2026 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
110 CRM
CRM-M-20265-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.04.2026
Kirti Bhatia and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present:-. Mr. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL,
NAGPAL J.
1. Prayer in the petition under Section 447 of BNSS,, is for
transfer of criminal case arising out of FIR No.179 dated 24.04.2025,
under Sections 354-C,
354 509, 34 IPC,, Section 3(2)(va) of SC/S
SC/ST Act and
Section 66E of IT Act, pending in the court of Additional District and
Sessions Judge Karnal to the competent court at Faridabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
petitionerss submits that petitioner
No.1 was married with son of respondent No.2 on 31.08.2020 at
Faridabad. Petitioner and her husband lived at Karnal and out of the
wedlock, a male child was born on 17.06.202
17.06.2021 in the parental home of
the petitioner after she was thrown out from the matrimonial home
home..
From the very beginning, respondent No.2 and his family members
harassed petitioner No.1 for dowry and tortured her. The child was
forcibly snatched
snatched by respondent No.2 and her son regarding which
CRM-M-20265
20265-2026 (O&M) - 2-
petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition wherein interim custody was
granted to both the parties for 50 days. Later, petitioner No.1 filed a
petition under Guardian and Wards Act for custody of the child
child. In
2023, respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against petitioners only to harass
them. The FIR was direct outcome of the matrimonial dispute. Sister--
in-law
law of petitioner No.1 had also lodged a complaint at Karnal
levelling false allegations against brother of petitioner No.1 and two
other police official regarding assault
assault,, detention and wrongful
confinement. On the basis of the complaint, police authority had
issued a notice to the petitioners.
3. Learned counsell further submits that petitioner were
residentss of Faridabad and the criminal case was pending at Karnal, at a
distance of around 180 kms one side. It was extremely difficult for
petitioner No.1 to appear in the court at Karnal on each and every date
of hearing as herr 3 ½ years minor child required constant care..
Moreover, petitioners had reasonable and genuine apprehension that in
case they continued
continue to attend proceedings at Karnal, they may be
falsely implicated in another criminal case. Petitioner No.2 was
suffering from serious health issues,, making it difficult for him to
frequently
ly travel.
travel. It is thus prayed that trial in FIR No.179 dated
24.04.2025 be transferred to Faridabad where other litigation between
the parties was already pending.
pe
CRM-M-20265
20265-2026 (O&M) - 3-
4. Section 407 Cr.P.C. which relates to transfer of criminal
case reads as under:-
under:
407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.
appeals.--
(1) whenever it is made to appear to the high Court
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,"
5. In 'Dipti
Dipti Chauhan vs. State of Haryana and others
others',,
2025(1) RCR (Criminal) 613,
613 a Co-ordinate
ordinate Bench of this Court has
deduced the following principles
principles in relation to powers of this Court
under section 407 IPC:-
IPC
17. As a sequitur to the above rumination, the following
principles postulates:
I. (i) Transfer of trial/appeal etc.; exercising powers under
Section 407 of Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 447 of BNSS, 2023;
can be ordered for by the High Court in case it appears fair
trail is not possible at the place where the trial/proceedings is
pending.
CRM-M-20265
20265-2026 (O&M) - 4-
(ii) The apprehension, of the fair trial being in peril, has to be
based on tangible basis/material and not on any
conjecture/surmise.
(iii) Before ordering for transfer of trial etc. the High ought
to consider whether the situation (causing fair trial to be
prejudiced) can be managed or resolved by taking any
remedial step(s).
II. If an order passed by a Presid
Presiding
ing Officer/trial Judge is
found to be erroneous by a superior Court, this by such
Presiding Officer/trial Judge being biased. Very
strong/cogent material is pertinently required for ordering for
transfer of trial etc on account of a Presiding Officer/tria
Officer/triall
Judge being biased.
III. The factum of non-applicant
applicant (in a transfer petition) being
a lawyer himself or being in close relationship with a lawyer
practicing in the Court where the trial is pending adjudication
cannot be a ground, sufficient by itself, fo
forr shifting of trial.
For such a transfer petition
tion to succeed, the applicant (seeking
transfer) is required to show discernible prejudice being
caused or likely to be caused to such applicant (seeking
transfer).
IV. General convenience of parties to trial or witnesses is a
factor which may be considered for transfer of trial etc.
However, it is not the convenience of one party alone but it is
CRM-M-20265
20265-2026 (O&M) - 5-
the comparative convenience of all concerned i.e. the
accused, victim/complainant, witnesses and the State
(Prosecution/Police) which is to be taken into account
V. In FIR cases pertaining to matrimonial related offence(s);
the convenience parameter of the wife, as applicable in
divorce/maintenance case etc., shall not apply with same
vigour since the convenience
ce of all concerned especially the
State/Prosecution also to be accounted for.
VI. No universal guidelines or parameters can possibly be
enumerated for exercise of power of the High Court under
Section 407 of Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 447 of BNSS, 2023 as
everyy case has its own unique factual conspectus."
6. There can be no denying that the trial proceedings ought to
be taken at its jurisdictional place, as prescribed by law. Though
gh
Section 407 Cr.P.C. empowers this Court to consider convenience of
the complainant,
complainant the jurisdiction
diction under Section 407 is not to be
exercised as a matter of course or routine
routine,, unless compelling reasons
are found made out. The convenience of other stake holders in the
justice delivery system is also to be considered
considered. The statuss of the
petitioners in the criminal case is that of accused. The criminal case is
being prosecuted by the State of Haryana. It is not a private case.
Transfer of the criminal trial to Karnal cannot be permitted on the
ground of inconvenience of the petitioner
petitioners and long distance between
Karnal and Faridabad. It is not the convenience of the petitioner which
CRM-M-20265
20265-2026 (O&M) - 6-
is the only consideration, the convenience of the witnesses and the
prosecuting agency is equally relevant. Just because of sister
sister-in-law
law of
petitioner No.1 lodged another complaint
complaint at Karnal and notice thereof
has been issued to one of the petitioners
petitioner cannot be a ground to transfer
the trial to Faridabad.
7. Accordingly, petition for transfer of the criminal case
arising out of FIR No.179 dated 24.04.2025, under Sections 354
354-C,
C,
509, 34 IPC, Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and Section 66E of IT Act,
pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Karnal
to the competent court at Faridabad,
Faridabad, is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending misc.. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHALINI
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
NAGPAL)
JUDGE
22.04.2026
Kapil
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
