Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010098812025 2026:GAU-AS:13205 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(Crl.)/20/2025 ALOK CHANDRA KALITA S/O- SANDHI RAM KALITA, R/O- NEAR HAHARA L P SCHOOL, VILL- KENDUKANA, PIN- 781380, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:DIPANKAR NATH S/O LATE ANANTA NATH R/O VILL-BAMUNPARA P.O. AND P.S. MATIA PIN-783125 DIST. GOALPARA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. A K DAS,MS. R DEVI,MR. P S BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A ISLAM (R-2),MR. F HAQUE (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 10.09.2026 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, being respondent No. 1; and Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Page No.# 2/5 2. This petition, under Section 447 of the BNSS, is preferred by the petitioner for transferring of NI (Complaint) Case No. 04/2025, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act hereinafter) read with Section 318(4) of the BNS, to the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Rangiya, Kamrup (R), Assam. 3. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner herein is the accused in the NI (Complaint) Case No. 04/2025, which is pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara. The said case was instituted by the respondent No. 2 herein, for bouncing/dishonored of a cheque, bearing No. 000173 of account No. 50160011710164, in connection with discharge of a legally enforceable debt and the petitioner herein is appearing in the aforementioned case regularly. 3.1. Mr. Biswas further submits that while the petitioner herein is facing the trial, the respondent No. 2 herein and his brother-in-law had threatened the petitioner herein that they would kill him or thrash him if he visits Goalpara in connection with the aforesaid case and in respect of the said threat and intimidation, the petitioner herein had filed one complaint with the Officer-In-Charge, Goalpara Police Station. But, the Officer-In-Charge, Goalpara Police Station, failed to register a case upon the same and thereafter, the petitioner herein had filed one complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara, on 26.04.2025. But, the same also failed to evoke any response and being aggrieved and also of his life, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, under Section 447 of the BNSS, for transferring the NI (Complaint) Case No. 04/2025, to the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Rangiya, Kamrup (R), Assam. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Haque, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, has Page No.# 3/5 vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the grounds so assigned for transferring of the case are vague. 4.1. Mr. Haque further submits that how and in what manner the petitioner had received the threat/intimidation from the respondent No. 2 and his brother-in-law is not mentioned in the complaint lodged with the Officer-In-Charge, Goalpara Police Station. He also submits that the Officer In-Charge, Goalpara Police Station, had not registered any case and that though the petitioner herein had filed one complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara, in the said complaint also, no step has been taken and as such, the grounds so assigned by the petitioner herein for transferring the NI (Complaint) Case No. 04/2025, to the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Rangiya, Kamrup (R), Assam, is vague and under circumstances he has contended to dismiss the petition. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record. 6. It is to be noted here that in the case of Shri Sendhur Agro and Oil Industries vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, reported in 2025 INSC 328, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- (i) A Section 138 complaint validly filed at the collection/home branch of the payee’s bank cannot be transferred under Section 406 of the CrPC merely because the accused claims another court also has or had jurisdiction or on grounds of lack of justice. (ii) Transfer is permissible only if it falls within the expression ‘expedient for the ends of justice’. (iii) Mere inconvenience, hardship of travel, language barriers, or cost of defending the case does not by itself justify transfer. The accused can seek exemption Page No.# 4/5 from personal appearance or request the court that he may be permitted to join the proceedings online. 7. Again Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the broad factors from Nahar Singh Yadav vs. Union of India, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 307, that guide the exercise of transfer power as under:- (i) State machinery/prosecution acting hand-in-glove with the accused, creating a likelihood of miscarriage of justice. (ii) Material showing that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant. (iii) Comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/ the prosecution and the witnesses. (iv) Communally surcharged atmosphere making a fair and impartial trial impossible. (v) Material indicating hostile persons are interfering with the course of justice. 8. Notably, in the case in hand, the petitioner has prayed for transferring the case on the ground of threat/intimidation by the respondent No. 2 and his brother- in-law. There is no doubt that a credible threat can be constituted as a valid ground only if it is supported by material and falls within the factors described in above point Nos. (ii) and (v). 8.1. The threat by the respondent and his brother-in-law can justify the ground for transfer if there is material to show real likelihood of interference with the course of justice and/or physical harm. General and unsubstantiated allegation of threat, surcharged atmosphere, or safety fears are not sufficient, the apprehension must be reasonable and made by reliable material and mere assertion is inadequate. Page No.# 5/5 9. It is to be noted here that Goalpara is the statutory venue under Section 142(2) of the NI Act and it is reserved for exceptional situations where ends of justice clearly require it, such as proven threat that endanger a fair trial, supported by complete evidence. 10. In the instant case, the allegation of the petitioner is not supported by any complete materials. Though he filed one complaint before the Officer-In-Charge, Goalpara Police Station, the same has not been registered. Further, he filed one complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara Police Station, but the same also has not yet been registered and as such, the allegation of threat and intimidation seems to be not real. 11. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any exceptional situation demanding the transfer of the NI (Complaint) Case No. 04/2025. 12. In terms of above, this petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant