An accused’s convenience or a pending claim proceeding alone does not justify criminal-trial transfer.

The applicant sought transfer under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of R.C.T. No. 35/2026, arising from a prosecution registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Dindori, and pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahpura, to a competent court at Jabalpur.

He relied on the pendency of a related claim case at Jabalpur, his present residence at Gadarwara, his permanent residence in Jharkhand, and the asserted inconvenience of travelling to Shahpura.

The State opposed transfer, submitting that no ground had been shown to doubt the fairness of a trial at Shahpura.

Whether the applicant established grounds under Section 447 BNSS for transferring the criminal case from Shahpura to Jabalpur.

Whether the pendency of a related claim proceeding at Jabalpur and the applicant’s asserted travel inconvenience justified transfer.

Section 447 BNSS empowers the High Court to transfer a criminal case between subordinate Criminal Courts where, among other grounds, a fair and impartial trial cannot be held, transfer would promote the general convenience of parties or witnesses, or transfer is otherwise expedient in the interests of justice.

The power is discretionary and depends on the circumstances of the case.

A party’s convenience may be relevant, but the applicant’s convenience alone does not displace the need to consider the prosecution, witnesses, other parties, and the administration of justice; the “general convenience” of parties or witnesses is not confined to the applicant’s interests.

The applicant produced no material indicating bias, prejudice, or any impediment to a fair trial at Shahpura.

The Court held that the claim case’s pendency at Jabalpur did not confer a right to transfer the criminal prosecution, which arose from an offence investigated and charge-sheeted within Shahpura’s territorial jurisdiction.

Nor did the asserted distance or the applicant’s comparative convenience establish that transfer would improve overall convenience: the Court had to consider the prosecution, complainants, and witnesses as well.

No sufficient circumstance showing that transfer would advance the ends of justice was established.

The application was dismissed as devoid of merit.