Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18166 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1341 of 2024 Reserved on: 29.05.2025 Date of Decision: 16th June 2025. Anand Shandilya and Anr. ..Petitioners Versus Hipesh Jagota ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Gaurav Datta, Advocate, through Video Conferencing and Mr Sushant Vir Singh, Advocate in person. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for transfer of the complaint titled Hipesh Jagota versus Anand Shandilya and another pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Mandi to the Courts in District Solan or Una. It has been asserted that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners/accused for the commission of an offence 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18166 ) punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘NI Act). The complaint is perverse and was filed on baseless grounds to extort money from the petitioner/accused. The petitioner is running the business of ladies' suits and garments under the name and style of Pranjana Textile. The complainant met the petitioner in December 2019 through a common friend. The complainant told the petitioner that he had a dispute with his wife and that he was willing to start a business of ladies' suits, garments and footwear with the petitioner. The petitioner agreed and the renovation of the showroom finalized by the complainant was started in October 2020. The petitioner incurred an amount of ₹2,00,000/- on renovation. The showroom was opened in the name of Ambe Origin Textile and Downtown Leathers. The complainant asked the accused to invest in one kitty of ₹21,00,000/- by paying the instalment of ₹1,50,000/-. 14 instalments were to be paid in the kitty. The complainant took two blank cheques from the petitioner as security. The petitioner paid regular instalments and deposited an amount of ₹6,21,870/-. The complainant misused the security cheques. The petitioner filed a complaint against the complainant and FIR No. 27 dated 09.02.2023 was 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18166 ) registered against the complainant at Police Station, Division No.1, Ludhiana. The petitioner also filed a civil suit titled M/s Pranjana Textile and Another versus Hipesh Jagota. The complainant holds a good influence in his local area and he had got registered an FIR No.211 dated 21.08.2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar District Mandi, H.P, however, this FIR was cancelled by the police. The petitioner’s life would be in danger in case of his appearance at Mandi. The complainant filed the complaint to harass the petitioner, therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint be transferred to some other Court. 2. I have heard Mr. Gaurav Dutta, Advocate and Mr. Sushant Vir Singh Thakur, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Mr. Gaurav Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had filed a false complaint against the petitioner. He also lodged one FIR against the petitioner at Police Station, Sadar. There is a likelihood of the complainant registering another FIR in case of the petitioner’s visit to Mandi, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18166 ) allowed and the complaint be transferred to the District Courts of Una or Solan. 4. I have given considerable thought to his submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. 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 pro- vide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an appli- cation for transfer of the trial are: (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the ac- cused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of jus- tice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prose- cution; (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18166 ) (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 exche- quer in making payment of travelling and other ex- penses of the official and non-official witnesses; (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indi- cating 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 di- rectly or indirectly, with the course of justice. [See: Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307] 6. It was submitted that it would be difficult for the petitioner to visit Mandi. 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 from travelling from one place to another is no ground for transfer. It was observed:- “65. For the purpose of 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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18166 ) appearance or request that the Court that he may be permitted to join the proceedings online.” 7. 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.” 8. It was submitted that the complainant registered a false FIR against the petitioner, which was cancelled by the police after the investigation and there is a possibility of the registration of another false FIR in case the petitioner visits Mandi. This submission will not help the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had to suffer any inconvenience because of the registration of the FIR. The police carried out the investigation and cancelled the FIR when no case was found against him. Therefore, even if another false FIR is registered against the petitioner, the petitioner is not likely to be put to any inconvenience as the same can be cancelled by the police, 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18166 ) therefore, this is no reason for the transfer of the complaint to some other Court. 9. It was submitted that the complainant has much influence in the area and the petitioner’s life would be in danger in case of a visit to Mandi. No such instance was mentioned in the complaint to substantiate this plea. It is not even mentioned that any complaint was made by the petitioner against the complainant regarding any threat before the police, therefore, the complaint cannot be transferred due to any threat to the petitioner. 10. No other point was urged. 11. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) 16th June, 2025 Judge (saurav pathania)