1 2025:CGHC:46593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 20 of 2025 Xyz Nil ... Petitioner(s) versus Lokesh Lautre S/o Late K.V. Lautre Aged About 31 Years R/o Kali Mandir, Charoda, Police Station - Bhilai-3, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11 .09.2024 1. Heard Mr. Rishabh Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 447 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking transfer of Sessions Trial No. 08/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Lokesh Lautre) pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raipur, to the Court of learned Sessions KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Rajnandgaon. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a divorcee lady having one child from her earlier marriage. It is alleged that the respondent, who is related as brother-in-law of the petitioner’s brother, assured her of marriage and thereafter entered into a relationship with her. On the pretext of marriage, the respondent allegedly established physical relations with the petitioner as a result of which she became pregnant. When the respondent resiled from his promise of marriage, the petitioner lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 1007/2024 at Police Station, Tikrapara, Raipur, under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the BNS. The case is now pending as Sessions Trial No. 08/2025 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner delivered a premature child during the pendency of the trial and she is facing severe hardship in travelling from Rajnandgaon to Raipur with two children for attending the trial proceedings. It is urged that she is suffering from stress, trauma, and financial difficulties, being a single mother dependent on her mother’s income. Considering the distance of about 85–90 kilometers between Raipur and Rajnandgaon, it is prayed that the trial be transferred to the Sessions Court at Rajnandgaon for her convenience. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the transfer petition and submitted that the trial is already at an advanced stage, DNA profiling proceedings have been 3 directed, and transfer of case of this stage would cause further delay in disposal. It is contended that mere inconvenience to the complainant cannot be a ground to transfer a sessions trial from one competent jurisdictional Court to another. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is settled law that transfer of a criminal case can be directed only when it is shown that there exists a real and reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done, or that circumstances exist which make it expedient for the ends of justice to order transfer. Personal inconvenience or hardship to a party, though sympathetic, cannot by itself be a ground to dislodge the jurisdiction of the court already seized of the matter, particularly when the case is at an advanced stage of trial. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raipur, is duly competent to try the offence. The ground of inconvenience in travelling and the personal circumstances of the petitioner, though may be genuine but it cannot override the legal principles governing transfer jurisdiction. No material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner would be denied a fair and impartial trial before the Raipur Court. 9. On the contrary, it appears from the record that the trial Court has already issued directions for DNA profiling and has proceeded with examination of the victim. Transferring the matter at this stage would not only delay the trial but also defeat the object of 4 expeditious disposal in sensitive cases of this nature. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the settled position of law, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for transfer of the trial from Raipur to Rajnandgaon. 11. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition (Criminal) stands dismissed. The learned trial Court is, however, directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, and to extend necessary assistance to the petitioner for participation in the proceedings and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal