1 / 4 2025:CGHC:12884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 26 of 202 2 1. Shriram Shukla (Died and Deleted)- Through Lrs. 1.1 - Jaya Shukla W/o Late Shri Ram Shukla R/o Ward No. 2 Bariyanatola, Near Durga Mandir Budhar Lalpur, Budhar, Shahdol (M.P.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ravi Shankar S/o G.S. Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o M.I.G. 1/436, Hudaco, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Durg District Bar Association Durg Through Its Secretary, Ravi Shankar S/o G.S.Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o M.I.G. 1/436, Hudaco, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents with TPCR No. 29 of 2022 1. Shriram Shukla (Died and Deleted)- Through Lrs. 1.1 Jaya Shukla W/o Late Shri Ram Shukla, R/o Ward No. 2 Bariyanatola, Near Durga Mandir Budhar Lalpur, Budhar, Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18-03-2025) ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Kotwali District Durg (C.G.) 2 / 4 2. Ravi Shankar S/o G.S. Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o M.I.G. 1/436, Hudaco, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) 3. Durg District Bar Association Durg Through Its Secretary, Ravi Shankar S/o G.S. Singh Aged About 47 Years, R/o M.I.G.1/436, Hudaco, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents For Petitioner For Resp. No. 1/ State For Resp. No. 2 : : : Mr. Vikram Kumar Dixit, Advocate. Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikram Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bharat Gulbani, learned State counsel and Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. The present transfer petitions have been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is therefore most humbly prayed that Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant application and Criminal Case No. 7144/2020 (State vs. Shriram Shukla) and Sessions Trial No. 6623/2020 (State vs. Ravi Shankar Singh & others) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg, may kindly be transferred to some other competent court out of Durg District, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is wife of deceased Shriram Shukla who was an Advocate duly registered with the Bar Association and had been transferred from Madhya Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh. On 07.11.2019, some office bearers of Respondent No. 3 called the husband of deceased at the office and abused him in filthy PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 3 / 4 language on the ground of uploading offensive posts in his FaceBook account and also alleged that he used to visit the court premises as an advocate whereas he had not the registration in the Durg District Bar Association. Due to the assault, deceased husband received injuries on the body. Deceased husband of petitioner made complaint before the Superintendent of Police on 08.11.2019 and an F.I.R. was registered. Thereafter, when Respondent No. 2 came to know that a written complaint has been filed against them, Respondent No. 2 also made a written complaint to Respondent No. 1 for uploading offensive posts in his Facebook account and on 03.02.2020 an F.I.R. against the deceased husband of petitioner was also lodged. Later, on 29.01.2020 deceased husband of petitioner approached the S.P., Durg stating that Respondent No. 2 along with other persons are trying to create pressure on the deceased husband for withdrawal of the complaint. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner who is wife of deceased is seeking transfer of the cases mentioned in above paragraph 2 to any of the court outside the district Durg, because she apprehends that she would face trial with fear of life and that the advocates would intimidate her and her witnesses. Petitioner has to attend the court for the trial and go against the Bar Association and since the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Secretary of Durg District Bar Association petitioner has apprehension that they intimidate her and can influence the proceedings before Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and prayers made in the transfer petition. 6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, perused the record from which it transpires that two reports have been lodged of one and the same incident, particularly the grounds taken by the petitioner about apprehension of intimidation and influencing the witnesses, but the same cannot be taken as ground for transferring the said cases from the court at Durg to any other 4 / 4 court out of the district Durg, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in the present transfer petitions. Accordingly, the present transfer petitions are dismissed. 7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice pwn