S.P. Pathak, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur on Application No. 2043/2009 whereby the application moved by the petitioner to transfer the criminal case arising out of the FIR No. 543/2009 Police Station Chomu and pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu District Jaipur to any other competent court at Jaipur has been rejected.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner is the wife and non -petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4 are husband, father -in -law and mother -in -law respectively of the petitioner. A report was lodged by the petitioner against the respondents in the police station Chomu. On the report, FIR No. 543/2009 was registered for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed on 13.11.2009 that is pending trial. An application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge for transferring the case from Chomu to Jaipur with the averments that the respondents have threatened the petitioner that if she comes to Chomu for attending the court proceedings, she will be killed and also that her father is an old and sick person and there is nobody to accompany her to Chomu for attending the court proceedings. A reply to the application was filed wherein it was stated that the first date after filing charge -sheet was 14.4.2010, therefore, the averment made by the petitioner in the complaint that she had been threatened is wrong. In the reply it was also stated that the entire family of the non -petitioners was involved in the false case. The learned Sessions Judge finding all allegations baseless, rejected the application. Hence, the present petition has been filed. It has been the contention of the learned Counsel that in the interest of justice the petition was liable to be allowed. It is also contended that the petitioner is a lady and there is nobody in the family to help her, therefore, also her application was liable to be allowed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that absolutely frivolous complaint has been filed. On previous occasion also she made such type of allegations but could not prove the same. It is also contended that in the case of Pariminder Kaur (Smt.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2007)15 SCC 307 in the similar circumstances the transfer application moved by the wife was rejected.;