HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 632 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sadashiv Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed with a prayer to transfer the Complaint Case No. 291 of 2021 (Nisha Devi vs. Satendra Singh), under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Civil Lines, District-Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Offence against Women), Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that brother of opposite party no. 2 namely, Nitin Kharwar got enrolled as an advocate in Allahabad High Court and he is regularly practicing here, therefore, he threatens that applicant will not get any justice and for that reason the opposite party no. 2 may also pressurize the applicant. He next submits that the applicant has also filed a Non Cognizable Report (NCR) against opposite party no. 2, her brother and some unknown persons, under Sections 115(2) and 352 of B.N.S. on 02.08.2024. He further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Ballia and has to travel for coming to Allahabad for attending the case and as a result he is put to tremendous hardship, as well as the financial strain. He further submits that opposite party no. 2 is the resident of Azamgarh, but at present she is residing at Allahabad. He also submits that due to the reason as stated above, it is inconvenient to the applicant while pursuing his case at Allahabad, hence the case be transferred from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to any other court of coordinate jurisdiction in any other District. 4. On the other hand, learned learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sadashiv Tripathi, G.A., Nitin Kharwar Satendra Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the allegations those have been made against the brother of the opposite party no. 2 are totally false and baseless. He further submits that the brother of opposite party no. 2, who is a practicing advocate in Allahabad High Court, may appear in any other District Court in any case, whether it is related to his own family or not. Being an advocate, if he appears in High Court, may also appear in any District Court, where the case may be transferred and as an free lancer and in order to pursue his legal profession, he may appear anywhere in accordance with law. So far as the brother of the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the same cannot be a ground to transfer the case from one District to another, hence the said prayer is liable to the dismissed. No other substantial ground has been raised in the application. 5. Having regard to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants, this Court is un-understandable how a plea of inconvnience could be based to avoid traveling a distance of merely 100 kms and in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. [(2012) 4 SCC 217)][Alongwith Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 46 of 2012] decided on 02.03.2012 and in the case of Radheshyam Mangalchand Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors in Criminal Writ Petition No. 589 of 2023 decided on 25.04.2024 and Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 307, has held that inconvenience could not be a valid basis for transfer of "criminal proceedings" from one Court to another. Moreover, that the brother of opposite party no. 2 is an advocate is not a ground to transfer the case from one district to another. 7. The transfer application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. September 8, 2025 Faridul TACR No. 632 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad