1 2026:CGHC:26366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 9 of 2026 Smt. Charu Chandrakar W/o Shri Vaibhav Chandrakar Aged About 29 Years R/o 303, M 14, Dolphin Jewello, Devpuri, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Shri Vaibhav Chandrakar S/o Shri Jhalaram Chandrakar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Barbaspur, P.S. Mahasamund, Tehsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Shri Jhalaram Chandrakar S/o Aiman Lal Chandrakar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Barbaspur, P.S. Mahasamund, Tehsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Hemlata Chandrakar W/o Jhalaram Chandrakar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Barbaspur, P.S. Mahasamund, Tehsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Smt Manisha Chandrakar W/o Abhinav Chandrakar Aged About 38 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Years R/o Plot No. 5, Rajnigandha Colony, Vidyut Nagar, Durg, Police Station- Padnabhpur, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, P.L. For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. Aditya Chopra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. The present petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) seeks transfer of Criminal Case No.2812/2023 (State of C.G. vs. Jhalaram Chandrakar & Others) from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund (C.G.) to a competent Sessions/Magisterial Court at Raipur (C.G.). 2. Brief facts necessary for the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 25.01.2019 according to Hindu rites and customs at Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.), and two children were born out of the wedlock. After some time, the petitioner was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondents over domestic issues, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home on 16.07.2022 along with her minor children and reside at Raipur. The petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Pursuant to counseling in a Lok Adalat, 3 she rejoined her matrimonial home on 30.06.2023, however, on 20.08.2023, she was allegedly assaulted, harassed, and wrongfully confined by the respondents, leading her to call the 112 police helpline. Consequently, Crime No. 319/2023 was registered at Police Station Mahasamund under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the respondents, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, and the case is presently pending before the trial Court at the stage of hearing on the accused persons' discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Hence, the transfer petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing at Devpuri, Raipur, with her two minor children, who are studying in Nursery and KG-II, and is solely responsible for their care and maintenance. Being the sole earning member, it is extremely difficult for her to travel approximately 55–60 km to Mahasamund on every date of hearing. Moreover, other matrimonial proceedings between the parties, including the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., are already pending before the Family Court at Raipur, where the respondents are regularly appearing. Respondent No. 5 is also residing at Durg, making Raipur a more convenient venue for all concerned. He further submits that the petitioner has a genuine apprehension regarding her safety as she was previously subjected to physical assault and wrongful confinement by the respondents, requiring police intervention through the 112 helpline. 4 Since the respondents are influential persons in Mahasamund, there is a reasonable apprehension that they may influence witnesses or interfere with the fair conduct of the trial if the case continues there. He also submits that the complainant and the prime prosecution witness, Bhupendra Chandrakar, are both residing at Raipur. In view of Section 447 of the BNSS and considering the comparative hardship, balance of convenience, and the interest of justice, it is just and proper that the criminal case pending before the Court at Mahasamund be transferred to the competent court at Raipur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the contents of the return, except those specifically admitted, are denied and reiterates all the averments made in the transfer petition. The allegations that the petition has been filed to harass the respondents or that the petitioner has suppressed material facts are false and unsupported by any evidence. The petitioner continues to reside at Raipur with her two minor children in a rented accommodation, while her parents are unable to assist in childcare due to their official duties and the serious medical condition of her mother, who is undergoing dialysis. He also submits that Section 447 of the BNSS permits transfer where it is necessary for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice. The petitioner faces genuine hardship in repeatedly travelling from Raipur to Mahasamund while caring for two young children. Further, the respondents have failed to establish any exceptional hardship in attending the proceedings at Raipur, whereas several connected matrimonial proceedings between the parties are already pending 5 before the competent courts at Raipur. He later submits that respondent No. 2 has consistently displayed aggressive behaviour towards her, including visiting her rented residence without consent, creating disturbances, and sending abusive and threatening messages. The petitioner has also placed on record photographs of her injuries, copies of threatening messages, and police complaints in support of her apprehension regarding her safety. In these circumstances, considering the convenience of the petitioner and the welfare of the minor children, the transfer of the criminal case to Raipur would serve the ends of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 opposes the prayer made by the petitioners and submits that the transfer petition has been filed without clean hands and only to harass them and delay the criminal proceedings. According to the respondents, the grounds raised by the petitioner are arbitrary, imaginary, and do not disclose any exceptional circumstance warranting transfer under Section 447 of the BNSS. They contend that no material has been placed on record to establish that continuation of the trial at Mahasamund would result in grave hardship or miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the petitioner herself lodged the FIR under Sections 498A and 34 IPC, pursuant to which a charge sheet has already been filed and the criminal trial is in progress before the competent court at Mahasamund. They contend that the power of transfer under Section 447 of the BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and only when there exists a genuine apprehension that justice cannot be served, which, according to them, is absent in the present case. He 6 also submits that the petitioner is an independent businesswoman running her own establishment at Raipur and frequently travels within India and abroad. They argue that she is not required to attend every date of hearing in the criminal case and would only be required to appear when summoned for her evidence. They further submit that the petitioner resides with her parents, who can take care of the minor children during her absence. He lastly submits that the respondents deny that all of them are required to attend proceedings at Raipur, stating that only Respondent No. 2 appears in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. They further submit that transferring the case merely for the convenience of the petitioner would cause inconvenience to the accused persons and prosecution witnesses, most of whom are residents of Mahasamund and nearby areas, and deny the allegation that they are capable of influencing witnesses or the trial. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The power of transfer under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is to be exercised where such transfer is expedient for the ends of justice or for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. While such power is to be exercised sparingly, the Court is equally required to ensure that multiplicity of proceedings does not cause avoidable hardship to the parties. 7 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. between the same parties are already pending before the competent Family Court at Raipur. The respondents are admittedly participating in those proceedings. Since the matrimonial disputes between the parties are already being adjudicated at Raipur, requiring the petitioner to pursue the present criminal case separately before the Court at Mahasamund would result in unnecessary inconvenience and multiplicity of appearances before different Courts. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate that all litigations arising out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties are conducted at one place so as to avoid unnecessary hardship and to facilitate effective adjudication. 9. The objection raised by the respondents that transfer would cause inconvenience to them does not merit acceptance, as they are already appearing before the competent Courts at Raipur in the connected matrimonial proceedings. Thus, no exceptional prejudice would be caused to them if the present criminal case is also transferred to Raipur. On the contrary, such transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and would be in the interest of justice. 10. Accordingly, the present transfer petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 8 Mahasamund (C.G.) is directed to transmit the entire record of Criminal Case No.2812/2023 (State of C.G. vs. Jhalaram Chandrakar & Others) to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.), within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil