1 2026:CGHC:20027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 8 of 2026 Smt. Sushmita Manthapurwar W/o Prem Narayan Manthapurwar Aged About 42 Years R/o H. No. 26, Dixit Colony, Sadak No. 01, Ward No. 02, Kosanagar, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Vishek Gupta S/o Rambandra Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o Sadar Road Ambikapur, District Surguja ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saurabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.1/State. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The present petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) seeks transfer of Criminal Case No. 11555/2025 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg. 3. Brief facts necessary for the case are that Respondent No. 2, namely Vishek (Vivek) Gupta, Director of Sai Auto Showroom, Ambikapur, filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner, who is also engaged in the business of sale of auto vehicles under the name RG Auto, Bhilai, due to prior business acquaintance, obtained two cargo auto vehicles from him on 04.03.2020 against invoices amounting to ₹3,72,750/- with an assurance to make payment, but failed to do so despite repeated demands. It is further alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque dated 27.03.2020 for the said amount, which was not presented due to the COVID-19 period, and subsequently executed a compromise letter dated 15.12.2020, yet did not make payment. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 lodged written complaints before the police authorities, and upon directions of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, FIR No. 0488/2025 dated 22.07.2025 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 384 and 420 IPC. After investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet was filed, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 11555/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Sushmita 3 Mantharpurwar) and is presently pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Ambikapur. Hence, the transfer petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Ambikapur; however, with an intent to harass the applicant, the complainant has instituted the complaint before the Court of learned JMFC, Ambikapur. He further submits that the applicant is a lady and is responsible for maintaining her family, including her children, therefore, it is extremely difficult for her to frequently travel to Ambikapur to attend the court proceedings on each date of hearing, therefore, the petitioner prays to transfer the Criminal Case No.11555 of 2025 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg. 5. Learned counsel appearing for State/respondent No.1 opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. Section 447 BNSS empowers this Court to transfer a case only when a fair and impartial trial cannot be had, a complex question of law arises, or transfer is otherwise expedient in the interest of justice or for the general convenience of all parties and witnesses. 4 8. In the present case, the grounds urged by the petitioner do not satisfy the requirements for transfer of a criminal case under Section 447 of the BNSS, as the contention of the petitioner that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Ambikapur pertains to an issue which can appropriately be raised before the trial Court at the relevant stage. The same, by itself, does not constitute a valid ground for transfer of the proceedings. So far as the plea of inconvenience is concerned, it is well settled that mere inconvenience of a party, including the fact that the petitioner is a lady and has family responsibilities, cannot be a ground for transfer of a criminal case in absence of any exceptional circumstances. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such compelling or extraordinary circumstance which may warrant exercise of power under Section 447 of the BNSS. 9. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner would not get a fair and impartial trial before the Court at Ambikapur, nor is there any apprehension of bias or failure of justice. Further, no ground relating to general convenience of parties and witnesses has been substantiated so as to justify transfer of the case. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds no just or sufficient ground to transfer Criminal Case No. 11555/2025 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg. 5 11. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil