Inconvenience, apprehension of unfair trial without substantial evidence No grounds for transfer of matrimonial case: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently passed a judgment in the case of Smt. Roshan Jahan v. Hasmat Ali @ Chhedu and another (TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. – 66 of 2022). The petitioner, Smt. Roshan Jahan has sought transfer of several cases related to recovery of maintenance amounts from the Sitapur Family Court to the Lucknow Family Court.

Legal issues involved

The main legal issue revolved around the request for transfer of cases made by the applicant, based on her fear of prejudice and threats from the opposite party, Hasmat Ali @ Chhedu. The petition was filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), which grants the High Court the power to transfer cases to ensure a fair and impartial trial.

Court decision

The judgment was rendered by Honorable Justice Shamim Ahmed. The court heard arguments from Sri Subhash Bisaria, counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Ankita Tripathi, AGM learner for the state. The court ultimately rejected the transfer request, citing the absence of serious grounds justifying the transfer.

Key observations

1. Apprehension of harm: The court noted that the applicant’s fear of prejudice from the opposing party was not sufficient grounds to transfer the case. The court emphasized that mere arrest without substantial evidence does not justify transfer.

2. Convenience of parties: The court emphasized that the convenience of a party cannot be the sole reason for transferring a case. The broader issue of the conduct of business in the jurisdictional court must be considered, including the convenience of the opposing party, witnesses and the prosecution.

3. Supreme Court precedents: The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Rajkumar Sabu v Sabu Trade Private Ltd and Satish Jaggi v State of Chhattisgarh, to emphasize that the transfer of cases should be based on more compelling reasons than mere convenience or the apprehension.

4. Assurance of a fair trial: The court reiterated that ensuring a fair trial is paramount, but that the applicant must demonstrate reasonable grounds for arrest. The court found that the applicant’s claims did not meet this threshold.

Important quotes from the judgment

“The broader issue of cases normally brought by the jurisdictional court must also weigh on the issue.”

“Convenience or inconvenience is irrelevant when it comes to the mandate of the law. »

“The fear of not obtaining a fair and impartial investigation or trial must be reasonable and not imaginary, based on conjecture and supposition. »

Read also

Order date: 05/24/2024

Bench: Honorable Justice Shamim Ahmed

Counsel for the applicant: Sri Subhash Bisaria

State Councilor: Ms. Ankita Tripathi