IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 3395 of 2022 Smt. Mallika Das -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhra Mukherjee Mr. Sauradeep Dutta Mr. Arpayan Mukherjee Mr. S.K. Mondal Mr. Himadree Ghosh For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P Mr. Arijit Ganguly Ms. Sreemoyee Roy Hearing concluded on : 31.01.2025. Judgment on : 28.03.2025 UDAY KUMAR, J.: – 1. Petitioner prayed for transfer of Trial Case No. 06(4) of 2022, Sessions Case No. 01(11) of 2021, arising out of G.R. Case No. 387 of 2020, corresponding to Kharagpur Town Police Station Case No. 226 of 2020, dated 18th June, 2020, under Sections 498A/325/307/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, from the Court of Learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge at Paschim Medinipur, to any competent Court under Session Division in Purulia judgeship, on the ground of her inconvenience in 2 adducing evidence thereat, due to shifting at Purulia and economic duress. 2. In brief compass, the petitioner and opposite party no.2 Mallika Das are husband and wife. They were living together. Later unresolved differences cropped up between them, which compelled the petitioner to lodge a complaint to the Inspector-in-charge of the Kharagpur Police Station, upon which police registered Kharagpur Town Police Station Case No. 226 of 2020, dated 18th June, 2020 under Sections 498A/325/307/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against opposite party no.2. He endorsed this case to L.A.S.I. Sima Laha for investigation, which was culminated into charge-sheet, submitted under Sections 498A/325/307/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, on 03.10.2020, against opposite party no.2. After compliance of all legal formalities, the trial was commenced before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court at Paschim Medinipur. Out of six prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, four have been examined in full. The trial is stalled since November, 2023 only for the evidence of petitioner. She did not appear before the Trial Court to depose her evidence, even after several opportunities . 3. The transfer petition avers that she could not adduce her evidence as she has been residing with her parents at Purulia, and she has not been in position to go there for this purpose due to economic constraint. Hence, she preferred this petition given to her. 4. Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that due to prevailing strenuous relations between the parties, four 3 cases are pending among them, except this case, other three are pending at the District Court, Purulia. 5. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that transfer of this case to Purulia would also suit to opposite party no.2, as he has been residing at Purulia since his transfer as a Loco Pilot under Indian Railways. Therefore, she prayed for the transfer of the case, pending to the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge 5th Court at Paschim Medinipur, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Purulia, for trial and disposal. 6. However, Mr. Mukherjee proposed an alternative prayer for a direction on the Learned Trial Court to fix a definite date for recording of evidence of the petitioner and ensure that her evidence should be concluded on a single day and to direct the opposite party no.2 to bear the expenses accrued to the petitioner in that course. 7. Per contra, Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2, contended that the trial of Sessions Trial Case No. 06(4) of 2022 was at the advance stage and pending before the Court of the Learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge at Paschim Medinipur, since 29th November, 2023, only for the recording of the petitioner's evidence. The report of Inspector-in-charge, Kharagpur Town Police Station, Paschim Medinipur, dated 31st January, 2025, also reveals the same. Moreso, trial of the impugned case has been stalled by the order of stay, granted in connection with this transfer application. 8. Therefore, Mr. Singh strongly opposed this application for transfer of the impugned case from the Court of Paschim Midnapur to the District Court of Purulia, as it would cause further delay in the conclusion of the 4 trial. As such he prayed for the dismissal of this revisional application with direction to Learned Trial Court at Paschim Medinipur to dispose the same immediately, after recording the evidence of the petitioner. 9. The seminal question involved in this revisional application is that whether a criminal case or proceeding can be transferred to the Court of other sessions divisions, on the prayer of a witness, the trial is pending since long only for recording of his evidence? 10. Petitioner prayed for transfer of impugned case from the Trial Court at Paschim Medinipur, to any of the Court at the Purulia, only on the ground of her personal inconvenience in attending the Court at Paschim Medinipur, due to distance from Purulia, where she started to reside with her parents, being single lady and economic constraint. Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, empowers the High Courts for transfer of cases and appeals from one sessions division to other, whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself. 11. 11. Therefore, any case or appeal may be transferred by High Court only when - a. fair and impartial inquiry or trial is at stake before any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or 5 b. some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or c. an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or d. it will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or e. it is expedient for the ends of justice. 12. Petitioner solely depends on her inconveniences in attending the Court at Paschim Medinipur, for the transfer of impugned case. Of course, the conveniences and inconveniences could be a ground for transfer only for the ends of justice but it should appear from face of the petition only to ensure quick and substantial justice. The stage of trial and possibility of delay in disposal of case should be a prime consideration in granting a transfer petition. Section 407 (1) (c) recognizes the ground of general convenience of the parties or witnesses, for transfer of a case. However, it appears from the material on the record that trial is at the final stage and transfer would cause further delay in conclusion of trial and disposal of case, which would not expedient for the ends of justice. 13. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the transfer petition in Baljit Singh & Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 501, only on the ground that the case was at the final stage of trial and most of the witnesses were examined. 14. In Pramod Kumar Tiwari @ Lota Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Anr. Case no. 31 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021, Allahabad High Court has observed that: "Seeking of the transfer of criminal trial at the drop of a hat is not recognized by the courts or by any tenent of law. An order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely 6 because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the conduct of the trial by a Presiding Officer. This power would have to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide complete justice and credibility to the trial." 15. Therefore, this power should be exercised in the exceptional situations only to do complete, real and substantial justice but with due care and caution, following the principle of natural justice and public policy and for protecting the credibility of the trial. 16. But I do not find any reason to allow this petition at the fag end of the trial, which is pending since November 2023, only for the evidence of petitioner, upon whose instances impugned criminal proceeding was started. Despite several opportunities, petitioner did not turn up for the recording of her evidence. The transfer would cause further delay in trial. The ground of inconveniences as referred to, do not seem convincing particularly when opposite party no.2 is ready to bear the expenses incurred by the petitioner in that course. Moreso, such petition should only be allowed to ensure quick and substantial justice to the parties. 17. In view of forgoing discussions, I find that a criminal case or proceeding can be transferred to the Court of other sessions divisions, even at the final stage of trial only for quick disposal and to ensure that substantial justice should be provided to the parties, not otherwise. Any such application made with intention to drag the case for causing harassment to the parties, should not be allowed. The reasons stated in the application do not satisfy my conscience to allow it. 7 18. Accordingly, the instant application filed under Section 407 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner stands dismissed. Consequently, CRR 3139 of 2024 is disposed of without any order as to the costs. 19. Interim order/orders, if any, stands vacated. 20. However, as the case has been pending since long, the Learned Trial Judge is directed to proceed with the trial of Sessions Trial Case No. 06(4) of 2022 and the Trial Court is directed to expedite its trial and conclude the same at the earliest without providing soft adjournments to the parties. 21. The date so fixed by Learned Trial Court, should be informed to the parties by their respective advocates and opposite party no.2 shall make all necessary arrangements for the movement of petitioner. 22. Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the petitioner in her designated account, towards the expenses incurred by the petitioner in recording her evidence before the Learned Trial Court at Paschim Medinipur, within four weeks from the date, and to submit proof of payment in Court within two weeks thereafter. 23. Learned Trial Judge shall fix a date for the recording of evidence of petitioner and conclude the same. The Learned Trial Court shall take all endeavours to conclude the evidence on the same day. 24. A copy of the order be immediately sent to the Trial Court by the office through District Judge concerned. 8 25. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard. (Uday Kumar, J.)