Matrimonial discord and financial hardship do not justify transferring a criminal trial; video-conferencing may be permitted.

The applicant-wife sought transfer of Criminal Case No. 41 of 2024, State v. Meenakshi Devi, pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Chakrata, Dehradun, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, to a competent court at Rishikesh under Section 447 of the BNSS.

She contended that the case arose from a matrimonial dispute, that she resided at Najibabad and lacked the means to travel to Chakrata, and that several matrimonial proceedings were pending between the parties.

The respondent opposed the transfer, submitting that the FIR was registered at Police Station Chakrata, investigation had been completed, and a charge-sheet had been filed. Cognizance was taken on 27 July 2024 and the trial was pending before the competent Magistrate at Chakrata.

During the hearing, the applicant alternatively sought permission to appear through video conferencing because of the distance and alleged financial difficulty involved in travelling to Chakrata.

Whether the criminal case pending before the competent court at Chakrata should be transferred to a competent court at Rishikesh under Section 447 of the BNSS on the grounds of matrimonial disputes, distance, and the applicant’s alleged inability to travel?

Whether the applicant should be permitted to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing, subject to personal appearance at stages requiring her presence?

The Court applied Section 447 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to transfer criminal cases where the circumstances justify such transfer.

The Court proceeded on the principle that the mere existence of a matrimonial dispute, the geographical distance of the trial court, or an asserted lack of financial means does not, by itself, warrant transferring a criminal case from the court having territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Court also recognised the availability of video conferencing as a procedural facility to alleviate genuine difficulty in attending proceedings, while preserving the requirement of personal appearance at stages such as recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC, pronouncement of judgment, or any other stage where personal presence is necessary.

The Court noted that the FIR had been registered within the jurisdiction of the Chakrata police station, investigation had culminated in a charge-sheet, and the competent Magistrate had taken cognizance on 27 July 2024.

Although the applicant relied on the matrimonial nature of the dispute and her residence at Najibabad, the Court found that these circumstances did not establish a sufficient ground for transferring the case to Rishikesh.

It accepted the respondent’s contention that the transfer application appeared to be an attempt to delay the trial, particularly since the case was already pending before the court having jurisdiction.

However, instead of directing a transfer, the Court accommodated the applicant’s difficulty by permitting her to appear through video conferencing, subject to personal appearance whenever legally or procedurally necessary.

The applicant was nevertheless permitted to appear through video conferencing before the trial court. She was directed to appear personally on dates requiring her personal presence, including recording of her statement under Section 313 CrPC, delivery of judgment, or any other stage considered necessary by the trial court.