JYOTI MISHRA versus DHANANJAYA MISHRA

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 27-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM, RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 10 S.C.R. 229 
JYOTI MISHRA 
V. 
DHANANJAYA MISHRA 
(Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 94-95 of 2010) 
AUGUST 27, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
Transfer petition - ·Estranged wife seeking transfer' of · C 
criminal case filed by her against her husband and his 
relatives - HELD: Transfer petition is liable· to be dismissed 
on the ground that only the husband is impleaded as 
respondent and the other accused in the criminal case have 
not been made parties in. the petition. 
D 
Transfer petition - Seeking transfer of criminal case filed 
by petitioner-complainant against her husband and his 
relatives - HELD: In criminal proceedings, the right of 
. accused to a fair trial and a proper opportunity to defend 
himself cannot be ignored for the convenience of the 
E 
oomplainant simply because she happens to be the estranged 
wife -Court is not inclined to transfer a criminal case from one 
State to another _solely on the ground that it would be more 
convenient for the complainant (wife) to prosecute the matter 
there - It is true __ that in cases of dissolution of marriage, 
F 
restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, much indulgence 
is shown to the wife and, ordinarily, the case is transferred to 
a place where it would be more convenient for the wife to 
pLosecute the proceedings - But, a ·criminal case is on a 
somewhat different footing - Accused may not be able to 
G 
attend the proceedings before the court suggested by 
complainant for many reasons, one of which may be financial 
constraints, but the consequences of non-appearance of the 
229 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A accused before such court would be quite drastic - Having 
regard to the consequences of non-appearance of the 
accused in a criminal trial, the Court is loath to entertain the 
prayer for transfer. 
· 
· 
· 
· 
Transfer Petition: 
~ 
Transfer of a criminal case or a matrimonial dispute -
FactorS,' to be considered - Explained - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - Practice and Procedure. 
c 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition 
(Crl.) Nos. 94-95 of 2010. 
Anjani Kr. Mishra, Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Akshay K. Ghai, 
Sanjeev Bansal for the Petitioner. 
D 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. We have heard counsel for the petitioner. 
E 
2. No. one _appears forthe respondent despite service of 
notice. 
-3. The petitioner is the estranged wife of the respondent. 
While still living with him at Hyderabad, she had filed a written 
F report before the· Station House Officer, P.S. Alwal, 
Secunderabad, that led to the institution of FIR No. 47012009 
dated September 09, 2009 under Section 498-A of the Penal 
Code citing her husband Dhananjaya Mishra (the sole 
respondent) and five others as accused. The Police, after 
G investigation,· submitted charge s.heet and the proceedings 
against the accused are now pending before the Vlth 
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad in CC No. 804/20,09. 
4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner left her husband at 
Hyderabad and came to live with her parents at Indore. She 
H has filed this petition for transferring the criminal case pending 
JYOTI MISHRA v. DHANANJAYA MISHRA 
231 
before the Vlth Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad to a court 
A 
of competent jurisdiction at Indore, Maahya Pradesh. 
5. The first. thing that needs to be noticed is that in the . 
Transfer Petitions only the hu-sbaod Dhananjaya Mishra is 
impleaded as~ respondent. ·The oth~r" accused ·in the criminll" 8 
case are not made parties to these Transfer Petitions. The 
Transfer Petitions are, therefore, liaple to be dismissed on that 
' 
score alone. 
6. Otherwise also, we are not inclined to transfer 'a criminal 
·case from one State to another solely on the ground 'that it 
C 
would be more convenient for the complainant (wife) to 
.prosecute the matter there. It is true that in cases of dissolution 
of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, tnis 
Court shows much indulgence to the wife and ordinarily 
transfers the case to a place where it would be more convenient 
D 
for the wife to prosecute the proceedings. 
. 
. 
7. But a criminal case is on a somewhat different footing. 
The accused may not be able to attend the court proceedings· 
at lndo~e for many reasons, -9n~ 9f ~~!f~ may be 'financial.~ E' 
constraints, but the consequences of nor.-appearance .of the· 
accused before the Indore Court would be quite d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.