1. This Transfer Petition is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 1554 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, seeking transfer of the said case to any competent Judicial Magistrate's Court within Ernakulam District.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, in C.C. No. 1554 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, having been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). The first accused in the said case is the elder son of the first petitioner, and the second petitioner is the younger son of the first petitioner. The prosecution allegation is that the first accused married the de facto complainant on 03.01.2008 and, after the marriage, while they were residing together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home, the first accused, as well as the petitioners herein, had subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The petitioners contend that the allegations levelled against them and the first accused are false and that they are innocent of the offences alleged. It is stated that the first petitioner is a senior citizen aged 66 years and is suffering from various age-related ailments, rendering her incapable of moving freely without the assistance of another person. According to the petitioners, the family members of the de facto complainant are residing at Pattikkad in Thrissur District, and certain relatives of the de facto complainant, who allegedly have criminal antecedents, reside in the vicinity of the court complex at Nilambur.

4. It is further averred that, on several occasions, the said relatives attempted to attack the petitioners. It is specifically alleged that, on one such occasion, they came to the residence of the petitioners in a vehicle, voluntarily caused hurt to the first petitioner’s daughter, and outraged the modesty of the first petitioner. In connection with the said incident, Crime No. 748 of 2009 was registered by Kundara Police Station. It is also contended that, on account of her advanced age and ailments, the first petitioner finds it difficult to appear before the trial court and effectively defend the case. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that, considering the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the case be transferred from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, to a court within the jurisdiction of Ernakulam District.

5. Per contra, the second respondent/de facto complainant has strongly opposed the transfer petition. It is contended that an accused in a criminal case is not entitled to choose the forum or venue of trial. According to the second respondent, the averment in the petition that she and her family members, who are cited as witnesses in the case, are residing in Thrissur District is wholly incorrect. It is further submitted that transfer of the case to any court in Ernakulam District would cause considerable hardship to her aged parents, who are also material witnesses in the case. On the aforesaid grounds, it is contended that the transfer petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions raised, it is pertinent to note that the present transfer petition has remained pending for nearly a decade. The case at hand involves a specific allegation that the de facto complainant was subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home by her husband and other in-laws. The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3, seek transfer of the criminal proceedings primarily on the ground of personal inconvenience.

7. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the venue of a criminal prosecution initiated upon the commission of an offence cannot ordinarily be determined on the basis of the convenience of the parties. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Undoubtedly, where compelling circumstances and substantial reasons exist, there is no embargo on the transfer of criminal proceedings from one court to another. However, such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.

8. The transfer of a criminal case cannot be ordered merely at the asking of a party. The settled legal position is that the power of transfer must be exercised only where there exists a reasonable apprehension that justice would not be done if the matter continues before the court concerned. Mere inconvenience to a party is not sufficient. By a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is now well settled that the convenience of the accused alone cannot constitute a valid ground for transfer of a criminal case. Equally, criminal proceedings cannot be transferred merely because one party finds it difficult to attend the proceedings. The paramount consideration is whether such transfer is expedient for the ends of justice.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2018 (6) SCC 358] observed that:

                  “Convenience of parties does not mean convenience of petitioner alone who approaches court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for purposes of transfer means convenience of prosecution, other accused, witnesses and larger interest of society.”

10. Bearing the above principles in mind and reverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noted that the second respondent has specifically contended that transfer of the proceedings would cause substantial hardship to her as well as to her aged parents, who are material witnesses in the case. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that a victim-centric approach is required while considering a request for transfer of criminal proceedings, rather than an approach that accords undue weight solely to the convenience of the accused.

11. Significantly, the petitioners do not have a case that they are unlikely to receive a fair and impartial trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur. No allegation of bias, prejudice, or lack of judicial independence has been raised against the Presiding Officer or the court concerned. Though it is averred in the petition that the second respondent’s family members are residing at Pattikkad in Thrissur District, the report submitted by the Station House Officer of Pattikkad Police Station reveals that the family members of the second respondent are residing within the limits of Nilambur Police Station. It is also reported that the second respondent is presently residing in the United States of America.

12. Therefore, it is evident that retention of the proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, would be more convenient for the material witnesses in the case. Although the petitioners have referred to an incident allegedly occurred in the year 2009, wherein certain relatives of the second respondent are stated to have assaulted the first petitioner and her daughter, resulting in the registration of a criminal case at Kundara Police Station, it cannot be overlooked that the said incident is alleged to have taken place nearly seventeen years ago, at a time when disputes between the families were at its peak.

13. At present, there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that the petitioners are likely to face any threat, intimidation, or untoward incident by reason of their appearance before the Magistrate Court at Nilambur. Indeed, no such serious apprehension has been specifically raised or substantiated in the Transfer Petition.

14. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the inconvenience pleaded by the accused persons, by itself, cannot justify transfer of a criminal case. In the present case, the close relatives of the de facto complainant, who are material witnesses, are residing within the jurisdiction of the Nilambur Court and are themselves aged persons. Transfer of the proceedings would cause greater hardship to them than the inconvenience presently pleaded by the petitioners. Consequently, no circumstance warranting exercise of the power of transfer is made out.

15. Furthermore, if the first petitioner experiences difficulty in making regular appearances before the trial court on account of her age and medical condition, it is always open to her to approach the jurisdictional court by filing an appropriate application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event of such an application being filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merits, untrammelled by any observation made in this order.

Resultantly, this Transfer Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.