1 2025:CGHC:41252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 22 of 2025 Prem Kumar Diwan @ Prem Kumar Harpal S/o Abhay Ram Harpal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Kharkhara, Awaspara, Nagar Panchayat - Chhura, Tahsil- Chhura, Police Station- Chhura, District- Gariyaband C.G. (Name Of The petitioner/accused Person Mentioned In The Cause Tittle Of Complaint Case U/s 138 Of N I A Act As Annexure A/1) Accused. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Benuram Sahu S/o Shri Sukhdev Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Parsabuda Mudibhanwar, Police Station- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari C.G. (Complainant) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Gariyaband, District Gariyaband C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/08/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.2/State. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) for transfer of Criminal Case No.374/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Cass, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband, District – Gariyaband (C.G.). 3. Brief facts necessary for the case are that the petitioner, accused in Crime No. 173/2023 for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC, is also facing Criminal Case No. 374/2024 under Section 138 NI Act before the JMFC, Kurud, Dhamtari, both arising out of the same incident wherein the complainant alleged that the petitioner took Rs.9,00,000/- promising a government job, failed to fulfil it, and issued cheque No. 007390 (Axis Bank) which was dishonoured. The connected case, Criminal Case No. 635/2024 under Sections 420/34 IPC, is pending before the CJM, Gariyaband. The petitioner attends both trials regularly but faces hardship due to separate jurisdictions. Earlier, an application under Section 408 CrPC before the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, was declined. He now seeks transfer of Criminal Case No. 374/2024 from JMFC, Kurud to CJM, Gariyaband, for joint trial in the interest of justice and convenience. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 447 of BNSS empowers the Hon’ble High Court to transfer criminal cases where it is expedient for the ends of justice or for the general convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the present matter, Criminal Case No. 635/2024 (State of C.G. Vs. Premlal 3 Harpal & Anr.) pending before the CJM, Gariyaband, and Criminal Case No. 374/2024 (Benuram Sahu Vs. Prem Kumar Diwan @ Prem Kumar Harpal) under Section 138 NI Act pending before JMFC, Kurud, arise out of the same transaction and involve overlapping parties and facts. The applicant is regularly attending the trial at Gariyaband, and transfer of the Kurud case to the CJM, Gariyaband, would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, prevent unnecessary harassment, and serve the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. Section 447 of BNSS, undoubtedly empowers the High Court to transfer cases where it appears expedient for the ends of justice or for the general convenience of parties or witnesses. However, such power is to be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent reasons are shown. 8. In the present matter, while the petitioner claims hardship in attending two different courts, it is not disputed that he has been regularly attending both trials. If the case pending before JMFC, Kurud, is transferred to Gariyaband as sought, it will cause equal inconvenience to the respondent No.1 / complainant, who would then be compelled to travel to another district for the proceedings. The mere fact that two cases arise out of the same transaction is not by itself sufficient to order transfer, particularly when the 4 nature of the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act is distinct from that of the IPC offences. 9. Upon overall consideration, I find no compelling reason to interfere with the trial Court's jurisdiction or to disturb the present arrangement. The grounds urged do not justify exercise of powers under Section 447 of BNSS in favour of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil