Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010191472024 2025:GAU-AS:11813 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(Crl.)/40/2024 INTAZUL HOQUE S/O TALIMUDDIN AHMED R/O VILL- DHOKAPARA P.O.AND P.S. SIPAJHAR, PIN- 784145 DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS MAINA BEGUM W/O INTAZUL HOQUE D/O GAHAM ALI R/O VILL- MULLAPARA, PIN-784529 P.O. HAWLI MOHANPUR, P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M RANA, MD. I AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M M ZAMAN, MR. M AHMED -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA 01.09.2025 ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. M. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. M. M. Zaman, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed under Section 447 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for transfer of F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 149/2023 Page No.# 2/4 from the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 Kamrup (M) at Guwahati to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, (Mongoldoi) Assam. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the opposite party at Mongoldoi, Assam as per the Muslim religious rites and rituals. The opposite party had filed a petition before the learned Principal Judge, Court No. 1, Kamrup (Metro) under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that though the opposite party is a permanent resident of Mullapara under Mangaldoi Police Station in the District of Darrang, Assam, she has instituted the instant case in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M) with mala fide intention only to harass the petitioner. He also submits that a G. R. Case No. 586/2021 between the parties is also pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldoi. He submits that G. R. case was initiated on the basis of an FIR filed by the opposite party. He further submits that the petitioner is suffering from acute piles and as he is stationed at Mangaldoi, it becomes very difficult for him to attend the Court in Guwahati. 5. In view of the above, he prays that the aforesaid case pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup may be transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang. 6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that though she was also staying in Mangaldoi, she no longer stays in Mangaldoi and at present, she is in Guwahati searching for good career Page No.# 3/4 opportunities and livelihood. He submits that if the matter is transferred to Mangaldoi, it will cause immense hardship to her and it will be difficult for her to attend the Court at Managaldoi due to the distance as has to cover as well as she has to work in Guwahati. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for rejection of the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. Heard the parties. 8. As per the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of cases including the case of Abdul Nazar Madani vs. State of T. N and another” reported in (2000) 6 SCC 204 and paragraph No. 7 is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “7. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties Page No.# 4/4 including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached 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.” 9. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid matter, transfer of case is rather an exception than a routine. Taking into account the ratio laid down by the Honb’le Apex Court, submissions made by the respective counsels as well as the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of transfer of the case as prayed for. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed, as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant