1 2025:CGHC:41855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 41 of 2024 Deeba Farhin W/o Abdul Razique Aged About 34 Years Presently R/o Village Kosmanda, Police Station And Tahsil Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abdul Razique S/o Abdul Samad Aged About 45 Years R/o Sector Street No.14, House No. 15 A, Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Abdul Sajid S/o Abdul Samad Aged About 49 Years R/o Sector Street No.14, House No. 15 A, Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kamrunisha W/o Abdul Samad Aged About 69 Years R/o Sector Street No.14, House No. 15 A, Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Gazala Anjum W/o Abdul Sajid Aged About 44 Years R/o Sector Street No.14, House No. 15 A, Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 6 - Tehrunisha W/o Sheikh Hanif Aged About 62 Years R/o Rasmada, Damad Para, Police Station Pulgaon, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Nasifa Anjum W/o Irshad Aehmad Aged About 47 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar, Khan Ata Chakki, Ward No.10, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh..............(Due To Demise Of Respondent No.8, He Has Not Been Made Party Herein) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. Heard Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 7. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) for transfer of Criminal Case No.968/2017 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 3, her brother-in-law, is a practicing Advocate at Durg and has repeatedly threatened her, delayed proceedings, and influenced the 3 trial, as reflected from the order-sheets dated 22.07.24, 13.08.24, 15.10.24 and 26.10.24 noting lack of cooperation of the accused. He further submits that the case, pending since 2017, has not seen completion of her cross-examination. The petitioner is financially weak, her mother is a cancer patient requiring her care, and she faces grave hardship in travelling 133 km from her village Kosmanda to Durg. The accused/respondent No.3 has not paid even the partial compensation as ordered by the Court. He also submits that most material witnesses belong to Bhatapara, Bilaspur and Janjgir- Champa, and the FIR as well as counseling proceedings were done at Bhatapara, making it the natural and convenient forum. The trial has been unnecessarily prolonged, with several accused on permanent exemption. The petitioner, though a law graduate, has no influence to counter the threats faced at Durg. He later submits that she apprehends denial of a fair and impartial trial if the case continues there. In the interest of justice, convenience of parties, and a speedy conclusion, the petitioner prays for transfer of the case to JMFC, Bhatapara. 4. Learned State counsel and learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 7 submits that the petition seeking transfer of Criminal Case No. 968/2017 from JMFC Durg to JMFC Bhatapara is misconceived and filed only to harass the respondents. Mere inconvenience of travel or delay in trial cannot justify transfer, as there is no threat to petitioner’s life, no apprehension of bias, nor any cogent ground. The distance from 4 Kosmanda to Durg is only 133 km, well connected by bus, and the petitioner is required to attend only for her evidence. Transfer would rather cause hardship to other prosecution witnesses, many of whom are from Durg, including police officials. The trial is already at an advanced stage, petitioner’s cross-examination is near completion. Allegation that respondent No. 3, an advocate, is influencing the trial is baseless as he practices in taxation and not in District Court, Durg. On the contrary, petitioner herself is a law graduate and has concealed this fact, raising apprehension of her influence at Bhatapara. The record of adjournments shows delays were not caused by respondents but due to petitioner’s own absence, change of counsel, leave of Presiding Officer, or other valid reasons. Charges were framed only in January 2024 and petitioner appeared for evidence in July 2024 after issuance of bailable warrant. The petitioner has also filed multiple cases against the family, including a DV case quashed against respondent Nos. 6 & 7. Further, petitioner is not the sole caretaker of her mother, as she lives in a joint family and her cross-examination will be completed shortly. Hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. It is well settled that power to transfer a criminal case has to be exercised sparingly and only when it is shown that a fair and impartial trial is not possible before the concerned Court. Mere apprehension of the petitioner, unsupported by cogent material, cannot be a ground to transfer the proceedings. In the present case, 5 no material has been produced to establish that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, is biased or that a fair trial cannot take place there. 8. The trial is pending since 2017 and, as per the record, the case is at the stage of completion of petitioner’s cross-examination. At this advanced stage of proceedings, transfer of the case would only cause further delay and inconvenience to other witnesses. The grounds urged by the petitioner, though touching upon hardship and inconvenience, do not justify invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 447 BNSS. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any good ground to allow the prayer for transfer of Criminal Case No. 968/2017 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made in the transfer petition is refused. 11. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil