Criminal proceedings transferred to protect a deserted wife facing threat and substantial travel hardship.

The petitioner-wife sought transfer under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of 1.C.C. Case No. 14 of 2006, pending before the S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, to the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

The complaint was instituted by the opposite party-husband, who alleged offences under Sections 323, 364 and 34 of the IPC; cognizance was taken on 16 May 2006 and the accused were summoned.

The petitioner relied on several prior proceedings between the parties, including a complaint under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, a case under Sections 341, 294, 506 and 34 IPC arising from alleged threats, and a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 CrPC.

She alleged that the opposite party had threatened her, attempted to take away their minor daughter, and instituted the Nayagarh complaint as retaliation.

The petitioner further pleaded that, as a deserted woman without income, she would face difficulty travelling to Nayagarh and bearing the litigation expenses, and that she apprehended danger to her life if required to attend proceedings there.

Notice to the opposite party was treated as sufficient after postal service was returned with the endorsement “Refused” and court notice was served by affixture.

One co-petitioner died during the pendency of the transfer petition; the petition consequently proceeded only on behalf of the surviving petitioners.

The criminal proceeding had remained stayed since 29 August 2006 and was still pending nearly twenty years later.

Whether the circumstances alleged by the petitioner, including the parties’ prior litigation, the alleged threats, her financial difficulty, and the apprehension of danger, justified transferring 1.C.C. Case No. 14 of 2006 from the S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, to the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar under Section 407 CrPC?

Whether the transfer petition could be heard and decided in the absence of the opposite party after notice was returned refused and service was completed by affixture?

What consequential directions were required concerning the transmission of the record and continuation of the criminal proceeding?

The Court applied Section 407 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer a criminal case or proceeding where such transfer is necessary to secure the ends of justice or where a fair and impartial proceeding is otherwise apprehended.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that, where notice has been duly served—including by refusal of postal service and affixture—and the opposite party does not appear, the matter may be heard in his absence.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that the death of a co-petitioner removes that person’s individual grounds from consideration and confines the relief to the surviving parties.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioner’s apprehension was not based on an isolated assertion but arose from the broader history of matrimonial and criminal litigation between the parties.

The alleged threats, the petitioner’s prior complaints, the maintenance proceedings, the asserted attempt to take away the minor daughter, and the petitioner’s lack of financial means collectively supported her claim that attending the Nayagarh proceeding would cause hardship and raise concerns regarding her safety.

The opposite party’s refusal to accept notice and his non-appearance did not prevent adjudication because service had been completed through refusal and affixture.

Although the ground concerning the illness and advanced age of one co-petitioner became unavailable after her death, the remaining circumstances continued to justify transfer.

Exercising its power under Section 407 CrPC, the Court therefore concluded that transfer was warranted in the interests of justice.

The Court directed that the original record in 1.C.C. Case No. 14 of 2006 be transmitted through the S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, to the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, preferably within seven days of receipt.

The Bhubaneswar court was directed to re-register the case if necessary, issue notice to the parties, provide due opportunity, and proceed in accordance with law while endeavouring to conclude the matter at the earliest.

The interim stay order dated 29 August 2006 was vacated and the connected interlocutory application was disposed of.