Oral Order:
(1) Heard.
(2) By way of instant Transfer Petition, the petitioner has sought for transfer of Criminal Case No. 394 of 2012 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur to any other Court situated in the same Sessions Division at Ambikapur.
(3) Case in short is that respondent No. 2 “ the complainant has lodged a first information report before Sitapur Police Station District Surguja against the petitioner which was investigated upon by the Police Station and a case was registered as Crime No. 67 of 2012 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for seeking transfer of the said case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur is that on 23.12.2011 when the petitioner had gone to the Court to mark his appearance in another criminal case i.e. Criminal Case No. 331 of 2010 some anti-social elements gathered in the Court premises, tried to assault the petitioner and also caused damaged to the vehicle of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said criminal case bearing no. 331 of 2010 was subsequently withdrawn from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur and was sent for trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur and since then the matter is going on there.
(4) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner apprehends that in the instant case also i.e. in Criminal Case No. 394 of 2012 if he appears in the Court proceedings he may be putting his life in danger as there is a possibility of assault that took place in the year 2011 to be repeated and therefore it would be better if the instant criminal case i.e. Criminal Case No. 394 of 2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur is also transferred to any of the other Courts within the same Sessions Division. Counsel for the petitioner also referred to a document i.e. annexure P3 which is a letter issued by the JMFC Sitapur dated 02.01.2013 addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur stating that according to the JMFC it would be proper and justified if the instant Criminal Case No. 394 of 2012 is transferred from the Court JMFC Sitapur.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has relied upon the decision made in Krishna Singh v. The Union Territory of Mizoram, reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. NOC 145 (GAU). However, such is not the case in the facts of the case in hand and, therefore, the ratio laid down therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, the judgement cited by the petitioner would not be of any assistance.
(6) However, if we see the records what is reflected is that after JMFC issued the said letter dated 02.01.2013 and the matter was placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur who intern vide his order dated 21.01.2013 in Criminal MJC No. 179 of 2012 found that the allegations leveled by the petitioner are sheer apprehensions and that there was no such danger or apprehensions which the petitioner should have in his mind. The Chief Judicial Magistrate also referred to the objections filed by the complainant who objected before the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that the matter should not be transferred for the reason that the petitioner has been indulging in threatening the witnesses in the said criminal case i.e. Criminal Case No. 394 of 2012 and in the event if the case is transferred from the Court of JMFC Sitapur to any other Court in Ambikapur there is all possibility that the petitioner shall influence the witnesses.
(7) It is also pertinent to note that the Chief Judicial Magistrate while deciding the said case also took note of the fact that the petitioner accused is also resident of Sitapur and all the witnesses of the complainant also belong to Sitapur and therefore only on the near apprehension the matter should not be transferred from one Court to another particularly in the light of the complaint filed by the complainant wherein it is alleged that the petitioner accused had threatened the complainant of dire consequences. For the forgoing reasons the Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected the application under Section 410 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.
(8) This order dated 21.01.2013 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in MJC No. 179 of 2012 was put to challenge in a case i.e. Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2013 before the Sessions Court at Surguja. The Sessions Court also after considering the submissions put forth by the petitioner and also perusing the reasons given by the Court below that is the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate reached to the conclusion that only on the ground there is an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner of being attacked should not be a ground for entertaining the transfer petition, the Court below had also taken note of the fact that earlier Criminal Case No. 331 of 2010 was transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur but in the instant case except for the incident which to place on 23.12.2011 for which the petitioner had also made a complaint there was no such complaint lodged by the petitioner in the recent pass by virtue of which the petitioner could have said that there is a danger to his life and this aspect has been duly considered by the learned Sessions Judge. As regards the report (annexure/P-3) of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, the Magistrate in his report dated 02.01.2013 held that the apprehension of the Judicial Magistrate First Class about the law and order problem would get disturbed in the event of case is not transferred, the view of the learned Sessions Judge in this regard was that the issue of law and order at a particular place is the duty of the police to look into and that if at all there is any such apprehension of there being a likely hood of a threat to the life of the petitioner if on the date when he goes to the Court to lead his evidence or put his appearance, the police should be informed accordingly and they should also be directed to take necessary caution giving proper security and safety to the petitioner within the Court premises.
(9) For the forgoing reasons, it can not be said that the Court below has not exercised its powers properly. It we see the orders passed by the two Courts below it would be evidently clear that the two Court below have in fact duly appreciated the entire facts and circumstances surrounding the case of the petitioner and that both the Courts below has also taken note of all these considerations while passing the order under challenged. On perusal of the findings arrived at by the Courts below in reaching to the conclusion it reveals that the orders passed by the Court below was neither erroneous nor was contrary to the evidence or record. At the same time the order of the Courts below are well reasoned and speaking order justifying the rejection of the petitioners claim for transferring the case from one place to another.
(10) Thus, the scope of interference under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. gets reduced to the minimum and that the order of the Court below has also taken into consideration the general convenience of the parties and the witnesses and thus the order was expedient for the ends of justice. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the instant case i.e. Criminal Case No. 394 of 2012 itself was registered much after alleged incident that took place in the year 2011 and therefore also the petitioner should not have any apprehension in his mind in respect of any untoward incident to happen in attending the Court proceedings.
(11) Even otherwise if at all if the concerned JMFC has any such apprehension of law and order problem on the date when the said Criminal Case No.394 of 2012 is listed for hearing he can instruct the local authorities to ensure that the law and order, security and safety of the accused and the witnesses in the Court premises are taken care of properly.
(12) In view of the said findings of the two Courts below, I do not find it to be a fit case for this Court to exercise the powers conferred upon it under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C.
(13) The transfer petition thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.