Dr.Neeta Manwani vs Dr.Sanjay Manwani

The petitioner herein has filed this transfer petition for transfer of Case No.38316 of 2018 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg to any concerned Court at Raipur.

Mr.Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in a complaint filed by the petitioner at Mahila Thana, Raipur, offence under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against respondents No.1 to 5 and charge­sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, which may be transferred in the Court situated at Raipur as she is residing at Raipur and she has life threat if she visits for evidence at that Court.

On the other hand, Mr.Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5, would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that no such threat is there and the petitioner can be provided police protection on the date of recording her evidence.

Similar submission is made by the learned counsel for the State.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

In the matter of Ranjit Singh, Niranjan Singh and Karam Singh v. Popat Rambhaji Sonavane and others (1983) 1 SCC 298 the Supreme Court while rejecting the petition under Section 406 of the CrPC by the complainant for transfer of case from Pune to Indore on ground of personal safety apprehending danger from the nine accused charged under Section 395, 341, 504 and 506 IPC directed for providing police protection as under:­

“8. We reject the transfer petition. The highest Police Officer ­ The Commissioner of Police ­ should made full arrangement for taking, if need be, in a police jeep of the petitioner from the railway station or the hotel where he is staying or from his house, if there be any, to the court on the date of the hearing and return safety to the railway station, if he is going out of Pune or the hotel where he is staying or his house. While the petitioner is in court, arrangement should be made for his safety and security. This arrangement is to be made for the period evidence of the petitioner is required to be recorded.”

Reverting to the facts of the present case, the sole ground of the petitioner is that she apprehends danger at Durg when she visits for recording her evidence. In view of above, if the petitioner files an application for police protection before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, the Superintendent of Police, Raipur shall provide police protection to the petitioner on the date of recording her evidence before the trial Court and cost will be borne by respondent No.1­Dr.Sanjay Manwani.

With the aforesaid observation / direction, the transfer petition stands disposed off.