AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel of both sides.
[2] This petition has been filed seeking withdrawal of the case bearing C.R. No.16 of 2025, filed under Section 356(3) of Bhartiya Nagrik Sanhitya (BNS), from the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura.
[3] The main grievance of the petitioner is that on 10.2.2026, when he appeared before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, to represent himself in said case, a group of miscreants led by one Jassim Uddin obstructed him and his advocate, attempted to assault him and to snatch away his mobile phone and also used abusive languages followed by a demand of Rs.20,00,000/-, with a further threat to kill him.
[4] The petitioner is a Journalist by profession. He has two other civil suits instituted by said Jassim Uddin, bearing M.S. No.08 of 2025 and M.S. No.09 of 2025 against him, pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Gomati, Udaipur. Concerning the alleged incident of 10.2.2026, he lodged an FIR at West Agartala P.S., which was registered as a Zero FIR.
[5] It is now the apprehension of the petitioner that, if he again visits the Udaipur Court Complex to defend himself in the said C.R. No.16 of 2025, he may be attacked, his life may be endangered and he may not be in a position to represent himself properly before the said Court. On that ground, he has sought for transfer of the said case to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala.
[6] Mr. Arindam Bhattacharjee, learned counsel submits that when the said incident occurred on 10.2.2026, apart from the engaged counsel of the petitioner, many other advocates of the Gomati District Bar Association were also present on the spot and witnessed the occurrence. However, without conducting a proper investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted one final report on the ground of deficiency in evidence. According to the learned counsel, till date, the petitioner has not received any notice from the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, regarding acceptance of the said final report and, therefore, it appears that the said final report has not yet been accepted by said Court and, therefore, his client has not been able to raise his protest against the same.
[7] It is further submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel that the petitioner also sought transfer of both the said M.S. No.08 of 2025 and M.S. No.09 of 2025 from the Court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Udaipur, to Agartala on same ground and both the petitions are already allowed by a coordinate Bench of this High Court. Learned counsel also relies on an order dated 24.7.2026 passed in Tr.P.(C) No.06 of 2026, whereby the suit bearing M.S. No.09 of 2025 has been transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.1, West Tripura. According to learned counsel, said decision itself establishes that there are satisfactory grounds for apprehending a threat to the life of the petitioner and, therefore, both the petitions were allowed by the High Court.
[8] Learned Counsel further relies on a decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and another vs. Rani Jethmalani, 1979 AIR 468, wherein, at Paragraph No.4 the following were observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with a transfer petition:
“4.It is true that a detached atmosphere of a fair and impartial judicial trial is a must. The tendency of toughs and street roughs to violate the serenity of Court is obstructive of the course of justice and must surely be stamped out. Likewise, the safety of the person of an accused or complainant is an essential condition for participation in a trial and where that is put in peril by commotion, tumult or threat on account of pathological conditions prevalent in a particular venue, the request for a transfer may not be dismissed summarily. It causes disquiet and concern to a Court of justice if a person seeking justice is unable to appear present one’s case, bring one’s witnesses or adduce evidence. Indeed, it is the duty of the Court to assure propitious conditions which conduce to comparative tranquility at the trial.
Turbulent conditions putting the accused’s life in danger or creating chaos inside the Court hall may jettison public justice. If this vice is peculiar to a particular place and is persistent the transfer of the case from that place may become necessary.
Likewise, if there is general consternation or atmosphere of tension or raging masses of people in the entire region taking sides land polluting the climate, vitiating the necessary neutrality to hold a detached judicial trial, the situation may be said to have deteriorated to such an extent as to warrant transfer. [381 H, 382A-C]………….”
[9] Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, learned counsel, in reply submits that the allegations of the petitioner regarding the so called incident dated 10.2.2026 itself was false and, therefore, the Investigating Officer did not find any material to submit a charge-sheet against said Jassim Uddin and therefore opted to file a final report in the said case. It is also submitted that just on the basis of mere apprehension, not substantiated by required facts justifying such apprehension, cannot be a ground to transfer the case from one district to another. Moreover, not only the convenience of one of the litigating party, rather, the convenience of the other party and his witnesses are also required to be taken care of. Moreover, the basic principle relating to the place of suing is that a case should normally be filed and tried in the jurisdictional court. In the case in hand, Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel submits that there is nothing in the record to show that, after submission of the said final report in the related police case, the petitioner has ever filed any protest petition.
[10] Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel also relies on a decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2020 Legal Eagle (SC) 627, wherein the petitioner, a journalist, apprehended threats to his life and sought for transfer of 3 numbers of cases from the State of Uttarakhand to Delhi, alleging that the State was targeting him for vindictive prosecution. While examining the materials in the record, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that not only the said 3 cases, rather total 28 numbers of cases were pending against the petitioner therein, of which 17 cases were related to the State of Uttarakhand, 4 cases were related to the State of Uttar Pradesh, 5 cases were related to the State of West Bengal and 2 cases were from Delhi. It is further observed that one of the FIR which was sought to be transferred was an FIR lodged in the year 2007, when the present ruling dispensation in the State of Uttarakhand, was nowhere in the picture and moreover it was related to a property dispute involving the Will of a family member of the petitioner; another FIR was related to forcible land grabbing attempts, on the basis of purportedly fake of documents. Only one FIR was purportedly relating to Journalistic activity where the allegation was lodged by a core member of the investigative journalism team with allegation that the petitioner in the guise of sting operation did not air them and the concerned footages are utilized for extraneous purposes. It is also observed that the State of Uttarakhand has already withdrawn many cases pending against the petitioner. In that context, the Apex Court ultimately rejected the said petition for transfer.
[11] In said case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court also referred to some other decisions of the Apex Court, including said Maneka Sanjay Gandhi (supra), and finally observed in paragraph Nos.20, 21 & 22 as under:
“20.The above legal enunciations make it amply clear that transfer power under section 406 of the Code is to be invoked sparingly. Only when fair justice is in peril, a plea for transfer might be considered. The court however will have to be fully satisfied that impartial trial is not possible. Equally important is to verify that the apprehension of not getting a level playing field, is based on some credible material and not just conjectures and surmises.
21.While assurance of a fair trial needs to be respected, the plea for transfer of case should not be entertained on mere apprehension of a hyper sensitive person. In his pleadings and arguments, the petitioner in my assessment has failed to demonstrate that because of what he endured in 2018, it is not possible for the courts in the state to dispense justice objectively and without any bias. It can‟t also be overlooked that the petitioner is involved in several cases and this year itself has generated few on his own in the state of Uttarakhand. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that justice for the petitioner can only be ensured by transfer of three cases mentioned in these petitions.
22.While considering a plea for transfer, the convenience of parties would be a relevant consideration. It can‟t just be the convenience of the petitioner but also of the Complainant, the Witnesses, the Prosecution besides the larger issue of trial being conducted under the jurisdictional Court. When relative convenience and difficulties of all the parties involved in the process are taken into account, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to make out a credible case for transfer of trial to alternative venues outside the State.”
[12] In the said case, the Apex Court also took note of earlier decisions in case of Abdul Nazar Madan vs. State of T.N. and another, (2000) 6 SCC 204, Nahar Singh Yadav and others vs. Union of India and others, (2011)1 SCC 307, and Harita Sunil Parab vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2018) 6 SCC 358. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncements, law is now fairly settled that the power of transfer should be used sparingly. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. Where the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court or even at any place, such power can be put in use. Where in the opinion of the court, complete justice cannot be done ensuring fair trial, court can/should invoke and utilize such power. Needless to say, fair opportunity of due representation is also a component of fair trial. While dealing with a prayer for such transfer, both the convenience of the parties and also of the witnesses is of relevant consideration.
[13] Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel also relies on another decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Mahajan vs. Vishal Mahajan, 2021 Legal Eagle (SC) 12158, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition with observation that an apprehension of threat of life merely on receiving notice on the complainant was shown but no complaint was lodged by the petitioner to the authorities concerned or before any Court. Therefore, mere apprehension of threat of life was not a sufficient ground for transfer of a case, without lodging a complaint or substantiating the said ground. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel laid his emphasis that not only lodging of a complaint will serve the purpose but same shall have to be substantiated too. In the case in our hand, as already discussed, an FIR has been lodged by the petitioner regarding the alleged incident of 10.2.2026 and in respect of lodging of his protest against the submission of final report by police, according to him, he did not get the opportunity yet to submit so.
[14] The Court has considered the rival submissions.
[15] As indicated earlier, a coordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with the prayer for transfer of a civil suit bearing M.S. No.09 of 2025, has already allowed the said transfer petition wherein a similar ground was raised by the petitioner regarding his apprehension of threat to his life concerning the alleged incident of 10.2.2026. The learned Bench, while dealing with the final report submitted in the connected criminal case, has further been pleased to observe that the said final report discloses that only the statement of the petitioner was recorded, but the statements of other persons named by the petitioner in the transfer petition or in the complaint including certain police personnel who were allegedly present at that time, were recorded. Therefore, learned Bench cast doubt about fairness and propriety of the investigation of the said criminal case.
[16] On the same ground, the instant petition has been preferred for the transfer of the present case too. Therefore, the Court does not find any reason to take a divergent view on the same issue. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that an attempt was made to assault him and to snatch away his mobile phone, including using of abusive languages and demand of money, etc. Therefore, certainly, he has reasonable grounds to apprehend that, if he appears before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, similar incident may again be repeated. The correctness of submission of final report of said alleged incident is already put in the bracket of certain doubtfulness and incorrectness.
[17] Considering thus, the prayer for transfer is allowed. The case bearing C.R. No.16 of 2025, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, is withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
[18] The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, will send the record immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order, after observing all necessary formalities. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, upon receipt of the record, will notify both the parties for their appearance.
Tr.P.(Crl.) is accordingly disposed of.
Interim order passed, if any, stands vacated.
Communicate a copy of this order to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, Udaipur and also to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala for compliance.