Transfer is justified where a reasonable safety apprehension and connected proceedings cumulatively favour convenience and justice.

The applicant sought transfer of Complaint Case No. 2331/2019, pending before the JMFC, Rewa, to a competent court at Satna.

The complaint, instituted under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleged offences under Sections 323, 324, 294 and 506-B of the IPC against the applicant’s husband and others.

The applicant, who resided at Satna, alleged that the respondents had threatened and pressured her to withdraw the complaint and that an attempt had been made to injure her by a motorcycle; FIR No. 840/2024 was registered following the alleged incident.

She also relied on other matrimonial proceedings pending at Satna.

The respondents opposed transfer, disputing the sufficiency of the grounds.

1. Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds under Section 447 of the BNSS to transfer the complaint case from Rewa to Satna.

2. Whether transfer was warranted having regard to the applicant’s stated safety concerns, residence and the pendency of related matrimonial proceedings at Satna.

Section 447(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to transfer a criminal case between subordinate criminal courts of equal or superior jurisdiction where, among other grounds, a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had, transfer would tend to the general convenience of parties or witnesses, or transfer would otherwise be expedient in the interests of justice.

The power is discretionary and must be exercised in light of the circumstances of the particular case.

Mere inconvenience or the pendency of connected proceedings elsewhere is not, by itself, ordinarily sufficient to justify transfer.

The Court treated the applicant’s transfer request as more than a plea of inconvenience.

Her specific allegations of pressure and threats, considered alongside the registration of FIR No. 840/2024, provided a relevant basis for assessing her apprehension, without determining the truth or evidentiary value of the FIR’s allegations.

The Court also considered her need to appear and give evidence in a complaint against her matrimonial relatives, her residence at Satna, and the related matrimonial proceedings pending there, in which the respondents were participating.

Taken cumulatively, these circumstances supported transfer and did not impose exceptional or disproportionate inconvenience on the respondents.

It transferred Complaint Case No. 2331/2019 from the JMFC, Rewa, to a competent court at Satna, directed transmission of the record and ordered that the case proceed from its current stage.

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Satna, was directed to assign the matter to a competent court, and the parties were to appear on the date fixed by that Judge.