In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present: The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi CRR 74 of 2024 Jyotibala Biswas & Ors. Vs. Sabita Biswas For the petitioners : Mr. Subhasish Misra, Adv. Mr. Satyajit Paul, Adv. Mr. Rounak Paul, Adv. For the opposite party : Mr. Abdur Rahim, Adv. Heard On : 23.07.2026 Judgment On : 28.07.2026 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:- 1. This is an application under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘Cr.P.C.). 2. By filing the instant application, the petitioners i.e., the husband and other in-laws of the opposite party/wife has sought for transfer of the proceeding being Case No. 599C of 2022 under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2005’). It was submitted that the 2 opposite party as complainant filed a complaint under the provisions of the Act of 2005 against the petitioners which is presently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Malda. According to the case made out by the petitioners, the opposite party was married to petitioner No. 3. After such marriage, the opposite party filed a complaint case being Case No. 599C of 2022 against the petitioners. It was alleged in such complaint that after her marriage with petitioner No. 3, the opposite party was subjected to humiliation, physical and mental torture on account of the acts of domestic violence perpetrated by the petitioners. It was also alleged in such complaint that the opposite party, her father and other relatives also visited the house of the petitioners for re-conciliation whereupon the opposite party, her father and relatives were assaulted and driven out and the efforts of re-conciliation failed. 3. By filing the proceeding under the provisions of the Act of 2005, the opposite party sought for the following reliefs:- “a. A protection order under section 18 of the Act in favour of the opposite party/ complainant prohibiting the petitioners from committing any kind of act of violence against the opposite party/ complainant. b. A maintenance order under section 20(d) of the said Act in favour of the opposite party/ complainant directing the petitioner no. to pay Rs. 10,000/- as a monthly maintenance. 3 c. A residence order under section 19(F) by way of directing the petitioner no. to provide suitable separate accommodation to the opposite party/ complainant in the shared household to live with dignity and without any obstruction or in the alternative directing him to pay Rs.5,000/- per month for rented accommodation as per the status of the opposite party/ complainant. d. A direction under section 19(8) of the said Act to the petitioner no. to return the stridhan i.e., gold ornaments and clothes owned by the opposite party/ complainant to her. e. An order under section 23 of the said Act directing the petitioner nos. to pay compensation for physical and mental cruelty, emotion distress suffered by the opposite party/ complainant. f. An order granting reasonable compensation for the injuries, mental torture, emotional distress and harassment caused by the petitioners to the complainant. g. Any other relief which the Court may deem fit.” 4. In the instant revisional proceeding, the petitioners have come up with a case that the marriage of the opposite party was solemnized with petitioner No. 3 on November 21, 2021 suppressing a material fact that the opposite party has been suffering from mental disorder to such extent that she was unfit for marriage. It has also been alleged that the opposite party used to misbehave with the petitioners and their relatives and refused matrimonial cohabitation with petitioner No. 3, i.e. her husband. A case has been made out stating that the opposite party used to misbehave with the petitioners and their relatives. She also took away all her belongings including the gold ornaments and other articles while she left for her paternal house. The opposite party is alleged to 4 have threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and also implicated them in a false case. It is also alleged by the petitioners that on November 18, 2022, family members of the opposite party came to the house of the petitioner and stole away all the ornaments belonging to the petitioners as also to the wife of the elder son of petitioner No. 1. The opposite party also tried to strangulate petitioner No. 1. In this regard, petitioner No. 1 lodged a complaint with Pundibari Police Station registered as Pundibari Police Station Case No. 202 of 2023 dated March 22, 2023. The opposite party is also alleged to have been threatening the petitioners. 5. Another complaint was lodged by the petitioners but the same was not accepted by the police station for which the petitioner lodged a complaint in Police Grievance Cell, Cooch Behar on June 20, 2023. 6. The petitioners also claimed that the opposite party filed the case under the provisions of the Act of 2005 on false and concocted ground. 7. As a ground for transfer of the proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, the petitioners made out a case that on October 18, 2023, the petitioners went to Malda Court to appear in the case under Domestic Violence Act. 8. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that the opposite party accompanied by others attacked petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 5 near a Shani Mandir while returning home. As a result of such attack, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 sustained severe bodily injuries. The gold chain worn petitioner No. 3 was snatched. At that time, petitioners were also threatened with dire consequences if they visited to the Malda Court. 9. Over the incident, petitioners lodged a complaint in English Bazar Police Station which was registered as F.I.R. No 1748 dated October 18, 2023 under Sections 323/325/341/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners also submitted that English Bazar Police Station having not taken any steps over such complaint, they brought the matter into the notice of Superintendent of Police, Malda. It is submitted by the petitioners that attending Court in Malda in connection with the case lodged by the opposite party against the petitioners has become life threatening for the petitioners. The petitioners also submitted that petitioner No. 1 happens to be a 60 year old lady. She is suffering from various ailments. Petitioner No. 3 is an assistant teacher in a school within Cooch Behar district and petitioner No. 1 is an Anganwari worker. The petitioners also submitted in their revisional application that petitioner No. 3 has also filed a divorce case against the opposite party before learned District Judge, Cooch Behar. However, the said case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Siliguri by an order passed by the High Court in C.O. No. 28 of 2023. 6 10. Citing the aforesaid reasons, the age and ailment of the petitioners as well as petitioners’ apprehension of assault etc. if they visited the Court at Malda, the petitioners have prayed for transfer of Case No. 599C of 2022 filed by the opposite party under the provisions of the Act of 2005 from the Court of 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Malda to any Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the residence of the petitioners. 11. The opposite party/wife filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the revisional application. She denied all the allegations made in the revisional application. The opposite party denied having any role in the alleged incident in Malda Court involving the petitioners. The opposite party also denied having taken away gold ornaments, another articles as well as the ornaments belonging to petitioner No. 1 and wife of the son of petitioner No. 1 as alleged by the petitioners. The opposite party also contended that she is employed in the Food and Supply Department requiring to discharge her official duties. Her old aged ailing parents are completely dependent upon her. Moreover, the opposite party submitted that the transfer application moved by the petitioners is nothing but a calculated attempt to delay, obstruct and frustrate the proceeding lodged by the opposite party under the provisions of the Act of 2005. It was also submitted by learned Advocate for the opposite party that the proceeding filed by the opposite party 7 has been filed in a competent court having jurisdiction. The petitioners have not been able to make out a case justifying the transfer of the case from Malda to Cooch Behar. 12. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have gone through the materials placed in the revisional application as well as affidavit-in-opposition. Apparently, it transpires that the opposite party/wife filed a case under the provisions of the Act of 2005 before the competent court at Malda. Incidentally, the parental house of the opposite party is in Malda. Initially, such case being Case No. 599C of 2022 was filed by the Court having jurisdiction i.e., the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Malda for disposal. 13. The petitioners have made out a case that they were attacked and assaulted by the opposite party and her men when they went to attend the Court in Malda in connection with the aforesaid complaint case. It has been submitted that for such incident as well as due to the advanced age of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and also petitioner No. 3 being a Government teacher, it would be burdensome on their part to attend the Court in Malda. Another ground which has been canvassed by the petitioners that a divorce case, filed by petitioner No. 3, was transferred from Cooch Behar to the Court at Siliguri at the behest of opposite party. 8 14. The proceeding which is sought to be transferred from the Court of learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Malda to an appropriate Court at Cooch Behar being Case No. 599C of 2022 was filed by the opposite party under the provisions of the Act of 2005. Section 27 of the Act of 2005 reads as follows:- “27. Jurisdiction.— (1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which— (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or (c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. (2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.” 15. A reading of such Section goes to show that the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate within the local limits by which the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Act. At the same time, the Court where the opposite party resides or carries on business or employs also has the jurisdiction to entertain such application. In the case at hand, the 9 opposite party lodged the complaint before the Court situated within the territorial jurisdiction where she is presently residing. 16. Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. provides for transfer of cases by High Court. Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. 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 to a Court of Session; or (iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself. (2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative: Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for 10 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. (3) Every application for an order under sub-section (1) shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation. (4) When such application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High Court may award under sub-section (7). (5) Every accused person making such application shall give to the Public Prosecutor notice in writing of the application, together with a copy of the grounds on which it is made; and no order shall be made on the merits of the applications unless at least twenty-four hours have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of the application. (6) Where the application is for the transfer of a case or appeal from any Subordinate Court, the High Court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of Justice, order that, pending the disposal of the application the proceedings in the Subordinate Court shall be stayed, on such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose: Provided that such stay shall not affect the Subordinate Court’s power of remand under section 309. (7) Where an application for an order under sub-section (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case. 11 (8) When the High Court orders under sub-section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred. (9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.” 17. Section 407(1) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates the circumstances which are required to be made to appear before the High Court inviting it to pass an order for transfer of a case. So far as the case made out by the petitioners is concerned, Section 407(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C. lays down that an order under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. may be passed by the High Court if it will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses or is expedient for the ends of justice. The petitioners have come up by making out a case that it is for their inconvenience that an order under this Section is required to be made. The inconvenience sought to be proved is that the petitioners were attacked and assaulted by the opposite party and her men when the petitioners went to attend the Court at Malda where the proceeding under the provisions of the Act of 2005 is pending. 18. In order to justify his case, the petitioners stated that the petitioners lodged a complaint over the incident but it was not registered. Later on, the petitioners brought the matter into the notice of the Superintendent of Police, Malda. No material is forthcoming from 12 the side of the petitioners that such case was actually lodged or has been registered or is pending. 19. Moreover, there are contradictory statements by the petitioners in the revisional application. At one time, petitioner No. 1 is said to be an old and ailing lady aged over 60 years but, at the same time, the said petitioner No. 1 is said to be working as an Anganwari worker. As per the working status of petitioner No. 3 is concerned, the opposite party also happens to be a working lady having her parents dependent upon her. As to the balance of convenience and inconvenience, if it is inconvenient for petitioner No. 3 (i.e. the husband) to attend to the Court at Malda where the opposite party resides, it will be more inconvenient for the opposite party (i.e. a lady) to travel to Cooch Behar in order to attend Court at Cooch Behar. 20. As noted hereinbefore, the opposite party has chosen to file her complaint before a competent court having jurisdiction over the matter. It would not be appropriate to pass an order of transfer of a proceeding considering the convenience of only the petitioners ignoring that of the opposite party. 21. On the basis of the discussions made hereinbefore, I am of the view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a strong case sufficient enough to be entitled to an order for transfer of the case being Case No. 599C of 2022. 13 22. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected. 23. Subsequently, the instant criminal revisional application being CRR 74 of 2024 is disposed of. Connected application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Stay order, if any, also stands vacated. 24. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) P.A.