1 2025:CGHC:57427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 31 of 2025 Janak Prasad Pathak S/o Late Goverdhan Prasad Pathak Aged About 58 Years Permanent Resident Dharampura No. 1, Near Nirmal Sadan, Jagdalpur Currently Residing At 303 B Block Indraprastha Apartment D.D. Nagar, Raipura, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. Heard Ms. K. Tripti Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “ The Petitioner most humbly begs to pray before this Hon'ble Court: a) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and transfer a Criminal Trial titled 'State of Chhattisgarh V/s Janak Prasad Pathak', Atrocities Case SCC No. SC/ST ACT/36/2021, pending RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 before the Court ofSpecial Judge, S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) to any other Competent Court within the District of Janjgir-Champa or any other Competent Court of any other nearby District within the State of Chhattisgarh. b) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order for time bound trial. c) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. ” 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner has registered FIR which has been registered by the respondent against the accused persons for offence under Section 376, 506 and 509(B) of the IPC. Thereafter, the concerned Police authorities have completed investigation and produced charge-sheet for offences under Sections 376, 506, 509(B) of IPC, Sections 67 of IT Act and Sections 3(2)(5) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the case has been registered as case Crime No. 256/2020 and proceeding is going on and pending before the Court of Special Judge, SC & ST (P.A.) Act, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). On 28.04.2025 advocate appearing for the Petitioner categorically submitted before the Learned trial Court that they do not want any defence witness to be examined and prayed for closing of defence witness and final argument in the matter, but instead of considering the aforesaid prayer learned trial Court again fixed the matter for defence witness. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial Court continued passing the same orders on the subsequent dates i.e. 13.05.2025, 09.06.2025, 24.06.2025, 22.07.2025 & 13.08.2025 despite there being categorical submission by the Petitioner's Advocate that they do not intend to examine any defence witness further, however the learned trial Court never mentioned the actual prayer made by the Petitioner's Advocate in any of the aforesaid orders. On the contrary it was mentioned or made to 3 look, that it was the Advocate of the Petitioner who repeatedly asked for time for defence witness. 4. Considering the urgent request made by the Advocate of Petitioner for final hearing in the case, learned trial Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 closed the defence witness but reopened the prosecution witness and issued summons to witnesses whose examination is immaterial in the present case. The learned Special Judge is deliberately using dilatory tactics to avoid passing of the judgment in the said matter because when the advocate for the Petitioner repeatedly requested for final hearing in the case, every time the learned Special Judge said that she was not prepared with the file and kept adjourning the matter without there being any either by the formal requests for the Prosecution or the Petitioner. The learned Special Judge never recorded the actual reason in the order-sheets, which were made subsequent to 28.04.2025 and deliberately pinned Petitioner for the repeated the reason on adjournments which is completely wrong. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner repeatedly prayed for closing of defence witness and made a categorical statement before the Court and that he does not desire to bring any further evidence in defence but despite that the learned Special Judge unnecessarily kept fixing the case for defence witnss. It is submitted that all the material witnesses have already been examined in the case and no witness have already been examined in the case and no witness is required to be examined further, and hence, it will be just and proper to transfer the case in question from the Court of Special Judge, SC & ST (P.A.) Act, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) to any other Competent Court within the District of Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents/State opposes the prayer made by the petitioner to transfer the case in question from the Court of Special Judge, SC & ST (P.A.) Act, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) to any other Competent Court within the District of Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and prayers made in the transfer petition. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground for interference in the present transfer petition, as the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present transfer application appears to be vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, the present transfer petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar