K. D. SHARMA, C. J, - (1.) HEARD Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. N. Mohanani, Advocate, appearing on behalf of non-petitioners No. 2 & 3 and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the application for transfer of the case and other relevant papers.
(2.) UPON perusal of the contents of the application for transfer and other documents and hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the Public Prosecutor, 1 am of the view that no good reasons for transfer of this criminal case from the court of Chief Judl. Magistrate, Bikaner, to any court out-side Bikaner's Sessions Division have been shown but only the ground alleged in the application for the transfer of the case is that the husband and father-in-law of the petitioner are influential persons and so there are no chances of there being fair and impartial trial of the case in the Bikaner Courts because they would not permit the petitioner's witnesses to depose freely and use all influence to prevent the true facts being brought on record. It was further alleged that he petitioner is very much scared on account of cruelty or mal-treatment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws and so in the fitness of things, she will not be able to go to Bikaner and to adduce evidence in support of her case. The contents of transfer application are supported by an affidavit of the petitioner's brother Shiva Kumar. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners on the other hand contended that the petitioner has no reasonable apprehension in her mind that she will not get justice in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. According to submission of the learned counsel for the non-petitioners, the mere fact that relations between the petitioner and her husband and in-laws are alleged to be highly strained is not sufficient for ordering the transfer of the case from Bikaner to any other Session Division because in case transfer is ordered, the non-petitioners shall be put to great financial loss and inconvenience in attending the Court on each and every date of hearing outside Bikaner Sessions Division. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. The petitioner has not levelled any charge or allegations against impartiality of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who is trying this case. Her only contention is that on account of influence of her husband and her in-laws her witnesses will not be able to depose freely in the trial court at Bikaner and that out of fear she also will not be able to go to Bikaner and to adduce evidence in support of her case. This is no ground for transfer of a criminal case. If the case is transferred to some other Court of Bikaner Sessions Division, the petitioners alleged difficulties will not come to an end. There are other remedies open for her, if she reasonably apprehends that her witnesses will be tempered with by the accused or that she will be subjected to some sort of harassment or maltreatment. It will not be out of place to mention that nowhere in the transfer application it is alleged by the petitioner that any such overact or acts were committed by the non-petitioner as may be capable of creating reasonable apprehension in her mind that she will not be able to produce her evidence in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner or that her witnesses will not be able to give evidence freely. Consequently, in the absence of good grounds for transfer of this criminal case, I have no hesitation in holding that the application for transfer is without substance. The application is, therefore, dismissed. . ;