Victim-informants may participate via video conferencing; personal presence is required only for recording testimony.

The applicant, Meena Devi, the informant/victim in FIR No. 429 of 2024 registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, sought transfer of Criminal Case No. 2397 of 2025, State of Uttarakhand v. Rampal, from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, to a competent criminal court at Didihat, District Pithoragarh, under Section 447 of the BNSS, 2025.

She submitted that she was a woman and permanent resident of District Pithoragarh, and that repeated travel to Rudrapur caused distance-related hardship, expense, and physical inconvenience.

She further stated that a competent Magistrate was available at Didihat, that the transfer would not prejudice or delay the trial, and that she would cooperate with the proceedings.

The State opposed the transfer through its learned AGA/Brief Holder.

1. Whether the criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, ought to be transferred to a competent criminal court at Didihat, District Pithoragarh, on account of the applicant’s status as a woman, informant/victim, and the hardship involved in travelling to Rudrapur?

2. Whether, despite refusing transfer, the applicant could be permitted to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing, except when her personal presence was required for recording her statement?

The Court applied Section 447 of the BNSS, 2025, governing the transfer of criminal cases, and assessed whether sufficient grounds existed to transfer the pending State prosecution.

It held that, in a State case arising from an FIR, the informant’s presence is not ordinarily required on every date because the prosecution is conducted by the State.

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, recognising the victim’s right to participate in criminal proceedings at every stage.

The Court also accepted the procedural utility of video conferencing for participation where the applicant’s physical presence was not essential.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant was the informant/victim and that travelling from Pithoragarh to Rudrapur could cause inconvenience and expense.

However, it distinguished between the applicant’s participation in the case and the necessity of transferring the entire trial.

Since the case was being prosecuted by the State, her presence was not required on each hearing date.

Her physical attendance would principally be necessary when her statement was recorded; on other dates, she could participate through video conferencing and assist the trial court if required.

In light of these safeguards, the Court found that the asserted hardship did not establish sufficient grounds for transferring the trial under Section 447 BNSS.

At the same time, recognising her right as a victim to participate in the proceedings, it directed that she be permitted to join through video conferencing.

The transfer application was nevertheless disposed of with liberty to the applicant to participate in the trial through video conferencing.

She was required to appear personally only on the date when her presence was necessary for recording her statement.