D/L – 6 01/09/2026 Court No.42 S.Kundu CRR 2817 of 2017 Swati Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. P. Karan Singh …for the State. 1. The learned counsel for the State, in compliance with the direction of this Court dated June 15, 2026, files a report dated August 31, 2026. Let the said report be taken on record. 2. It appears from the said Report that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been duly served and informed about the present revisional application pending before this Court. 3. On perusal of the note appended to the Administrative Order dated December 16, 2024 of the Judge-in- Charge, Civil Court Durgapur, it appears that despite several attempts, the notice regarding the next date of hearing of the present revisional application could not be served upon the petitioner. Considering the long pendency of the said revisional application since 2017 as well as the continuous absence of representation of the petitioner, this matter is taken up for disposal on the basis of the materials already available on record. 4. The instant revisional application is instituted by the petitioner under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure for transfer of the criminal proceeding being Complaint Case No. 1004 of 2016 (T.R no. 24 of 2016) alleging the commission of offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC from the 2nd Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barasat to the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur. 5. The factual backdrop discloses a protracted matrimonial discord between the parties. The petitioner was married to the opposite party no. 2 on 1st December, 1995 at Uttar Ramkrishna Pally, Durgapur, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs, and, the couple resided happily for two years. Consequently, they were blessed with a daughter born on 17th November, 1997, from the said wedlock. During the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave valuable ornaments and the household articles to the opposite party no. 2, in marriage gift. 6. Subsequently, after securing employment in Delhi in 2002, Opposite Party No. 2 withdrew from cohabitation, leaving the petitioner and their daughter stranded without financial support at the matrimonial home in Durgapur. The petitioner tried to sort out the marital problem, but all went in vain. She is still residing at her matrimonial home in anticipation of better future. 3 7. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to initiate multiple proceedings at Durgapur, including a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (Misc. Case No. 352 of 2015), an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Misc. Case No. 353 of 2015), and a similar domestic violence proceeding initiated by their daughter (Misc. Case No. 71 of 2016), all of which are being actively contested by Opposite Party No. 2. 8. Conversely, counter-litigation was instituted by Opposite Party No. 2, who filed a Matrimonial Suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (registered as MAT Suit No. 290 of 2016) before the learned District Judge at Barasat. Upon an application filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated November 3, 2016, transferred the said matrimonial proceeding from Barasat to Durgapur, where it was re-numbered as MAT Suit No. 27 of 2017. 9. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2/ husband, challenging the interim maintenance order dated 19th December 2016 passed by the 2nd Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur in Misc. Case No. 352 of 2015, filed an application under Section 397 r/w Section 399 of the Cr.P.C before the learned District Judge, Burdwan, which was registered as Criminal Motion No. 7 of 2017. 4 10. In addition to the matrimonial proceedings, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., alleging that Opposite Party No. 2 had forged her signature to surreptitiously transfer a jointly owned residential flat at 'Hiland' under his sole name, which gave rise to Complaint Case No. 1004 of 2016, presently pending before the 2nd Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Barasat. Citing the pendency of multiple litigations between the parties at Durgapur and the severe travel hardship involved in attending proceedings at Barasat, the petitioner seeks the transfer of the said complaint case. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the State and upon a meticulous examination of the revisional application and annexed records, this Court finds that the prayer for transfer is devoid of legally sustainable grounds. Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers this Court to transfer cases and appeals when it is made to appear that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had, or that an order of transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. Mere geographic inconvenience or the pendency of other proceedings in a different station, standing alone, does not automatically warrant the transfer of a criminal proceeding, particularly when criminal accountability and local jurisdiction are tied to the place of occurrence and the court where cognizance has been taken. 5 12. More importantly, despite the matter being pending since 2017, the petitioner has consistently failed to enter appearance or provide representation before this Court to press her application. Crucially, there is an absolute lack of material or instruction on record to apprise this Court of the current judicial status of Complaint Case No. 1004 of 2016, specifically, whether the said proceeding is still actively pending, stayed, or has already reached its culmination or disposal over the last several years. 13. In the complete absence of vital information regarding the present status of the trial/complaint case, and in the absence of any compelling circumstance demonstrating prejudice to a fair trial, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. to transfer the case from Barasat to Durgapur. The application, prima facie, lacks both merit and active prosecution by the applicant. 14. Consequently, CRR No. 2817 of 2017 is dismissed. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)