In re: Ananda Gopal Dhar and Others

Joymalya Bagchi, J.—No one appears in support of the application, when the matter is called on. This application has been filed for transfer of G.R. Case No. 186 of 2011 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat, Birbhum arising out of Murarai Police Station Case No. 28 of 2011 dated March 17, 2011 u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

It appears that a matrimonial dispute cropped up between the petitioner No. 3 and opposite party No. 2, which resulted in filing of the instant criminal case u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which is presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat, Birbhum. The petitioner No. 3 filed a matrimonial suit before the court of the learned District Judge, Murshidabad being Matrimonial Case No. 229 of 2010 praying for divorce. It has been pleaded in the application that the father of the opposite party No. 2 is a dangerous person and various criminal cases are pending against him. On that score, it has been submitted that the petitioners would be threatened, in the event, they go to Rampurhat to defend themselves and would not be able to contest the said litigation there. It has further been pleaded that the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated August 30, 2011 in C.O. No. 542 of 2011 has transferred the matrimonial proceeding to the Court of the learned District Judge, North 24-Parganas at Barasat for disposal. It is, therefore, prayed that the criminal case be also transferred to an appropriate court in Barasat.

Opposite party No. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the allegations contained in this application.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 submits that the allegations against the father are absolutely false and there is no threat perception in respect of the accused persons. He, further, submits that since most of the witnesses in the criminal case are residing in and around Rampurhat, it would be difficult for her to prove the case there.

Learned advocate appearing for the State supports the contention of the opposite party No. 2. He submits that ordinarily an offence is to be tried at the jurisdiction where it is committed. In the instant case, the witnesses would also be prejudiced in the event the case is transferred.

I have considered the submission of the parties. It is true that the matrimonial proceeding has been transferred to the court of the learned District Judge at Barasat, North 24-Parganas. However, in view of the fact that most of the witnesses in the criminal trial are residing in and around Rampurhat, I am of the view that transfer of the case to Barasat would cause hardship and prejudice the prosecution in leading evidence. That apart, the threat perception as canvassed in the application could be taken care of by giving opportunity to the petitioners to represent themselves through their learned advocates u/s 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Accordingly, I dispose of this application by giving liberty to the petitioners to represent themselves in the trial of the instant case u/s 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in the event, such application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall favourably consider the same subject to such conditions as he may choose to impose. In addition thereto, the petitioners would be at liberty to bring to the notice of the learned Magistrate in the event any threat is held out to them in course of trial of the proceedings at the behest of the family members of opposite party No. 2. With the aforesaid directions, the revisional application is disposed of.