2025:HHC:20297 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 405 of 2025 Reserved on: 17.06.2025 Date of Decision: 28.06.2025 Anjana Devi ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. ______________________________________ Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed seeking transfer of the case bearing Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2023, titled Anjana Devi vs State of H.P., from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hamipur, H.P., to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that F.I.R. No. 323 of 2017 was registered at the Police Station Sadar Hamirpur for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:20297 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitoner. Learned Trial Court tried and convicted the petitioner of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC on 25.02.2023. She filed a Criminal appeal on 18.03.2023, which was listed for hearing on 11.06.2025. The petitioner is a resident of Panchkula, Haryana, which is at a distance of 170 KM from Hamirpur, and it takes more than three hours to cover the distance. The matter is unlikely to be decided shortly. The petitioner is suffering from a skin infection, due to which she cannot travel such a long distance. The nearest Session Court is Solan, District Solan, H.P. Hence, the present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is unable to cover a distance of 170 KM from Panchkulla to Hamirpur. The continuous travel is causing hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the criminal bearing registration No.32 of 2023 be transferred to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, 3 2025:HHC:20297 Solan, H.P., from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. 5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner is not required during the hearing of the appeal. The inconvenience of the petitioner is no reason for the transfer of the case, and she can always seek her exemption. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for transferring a criminal case from one Court to another in Shri Sendhur Agro& Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 508 and observed as under: 49. Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not the power under Section 406 Cr. P.C.should be exercised, yet it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine and more particularly on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are: 4 2025:HHC:20297 (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is a likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution; (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; (iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses; (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability in holding a fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the course of justice. [See: Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307] 8. It was submitted that the petitioner is unable to travel from Panchkula to Hamirpur and the case be transferred to Solan. This submission is not acceptable. She faced the trial at Hamirpur, where her presence was required on every date of hearing. She filed the appeal in the year 2023 and filed the present petition to transfer her appeal in the year 2025. It was rightly submitted, on behalf of the State, that the presence of the 5 2025:HHC:20297 petitioner is not required during the hearing of the appeal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries (supra) that mere inconvenience or hardship faced by the accused in travelling from one place to another is no ground for transfer. It was observed:- “65. For the transfer of any case or proceedings under Section 406 of the Cr. P.C., the case must fall within the ambit of the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. Mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused may have to face in travelling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh would not fall within the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. The case must fall within any of the five situations as narrated in para 49 of this judgment. It is always open for the petitioner accused to pray for exemption from personal appearance or request that the Court that him may be permitted to join the proceedings online.” 9. It was further held that the mere inconvenience of the parties is no ground to transfer. It was observed:- “47. It follows from the above-mentioned exposition of law that transfer of cases under Section 406 Cr. P.C. may be allowed when there is a reasonable apprehension backed by evidence that justice may not be done, and mere convenience or inconvenience of the parties may not by itself be sufficient enough to pray for transfer. The court has to appropriately balance the grounds raised in the facts and circumstances of each case and exercise its discretion in a circumspect manner while ordering a transfer under Section 406.” 10. It was submitted that the appeal is not likely to be heard shortly. This submission will not help the petitioner as she can always request the Court for an early hearing, and this Court 6 2025:HHC:20297 does not doubt that such a request, if made, would be favourably considered by the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, the appeal cannot be transferred on the ground that its hearing is not likely to take place soon. 11. In view of the above, there is no justification for transferring the appeal from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, to the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. Hence, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12. The observation made hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th June, 2025 (ravinder)