Case Background
The matter arose out of a private complaint filed in 2018 as Complaint Case No. 714(c)/2018 before the court of the learned A.C.J.M.-1, Barh, within the jurisdiction of Barh Civil Court, District Patna.
The complainant, who later became the petitioner before the Patna High Court, filed the complaint case against respondent no. 2 and others. He alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 380, 384, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b) and 26 of the Arms Act.
After enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barh, did not take cognizance for all the alleged offences. Cognizance was taken under Sections 323, 380, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent no. 2 and another, on the basis of the materials on record and statements of enquiry witnesses.
Subsequently, charge was also framed by the Magistrate under Sections 323, 380, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
While the complaint case was pending in Barh, respondent no. 2, a woman, filed Criminal Miscellaneous (Transfer) Case No. 199/2022 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Patna. In that petition, she sought transfer of the complaint case from Barh to Patna.
The Sessions Judge, Patna, by order dated 28.03.2023, allowed the transfer petition. He directed that Complaint Case No. 714(c)/2018 be transferred from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barh, to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna.
Aggrieved by this transfer order, the complainant approached the Patna High Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 566 of 2023. He asked the High Court to set aside the Sessions Judge’s order dated 28.03.2023.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The criminal revision came up before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey of the Patna High Court. The oral judgment was delivered on 12.03.2026.
The petitioner’s main grievance was against the Sessions Judge’s decision to transfer the complaint case from Barh to Patna. He wanted the case to continue in Barh, where it was originally filed and where the alleged incident took place.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Magistrate at Barh had already taken cognizance and framed charge under Sections 323, 380, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, there was no valid reason to disturb this and shift the ongoing trial.
The petitioner attacked the transfer petition filed by respondent no. 2. He submitted that respondent no. 2 had given a wrong address in the transfer application, by mentioning her residence as Mohalla-Lohanipur, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District Patna.
He stated that, in reality, respondent no. 2 was still residing at Barh along with a co-accused. According to him, by showing a Patna address she only wanted to harass the petitioner and delay the complaint case.
The petitioner’s counsel also submitted that after receiving notice in the transfer case, the petitioner had appeared before the Sessions Court and filed his reply. Despite this, the Sessions Judge allegedly failed to consider important aspects, especially the place of occurrence.
He contended that the Sessions Court transferred the case from one court to another in Patna “without any reason,” ignoring that the alleged incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of Barh Civil Court and that the case was properly instituted there.
On the other side, learned counsel for the State supported the transfer order. He relied directly on the contents of the Sessions Judge’s impugned order.
The State pointed out that, as reflected from the impugned order itself, Divorce Case No. 1161/2017 was pending between respondent no. 2 and her husband before the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna.
The Sessions Judge had also noted that respondent no. 2, the woman, was contesting this divorce case against the son of the complainant (who is the petitioner before the High Court). The Family Court proceedings were taking place in Patna.
According to the State, the Sessions Court reasoned that if the criminal complaint case also proceeded in Patna, it would not prejudice the rights of the complainant. This is because his son, who is respondent no. 2’s husband, was already contesting the divorce case in Patna.
At the same time, it would be more convenient and less burdensome for respondent no. 2, a lady litigant, to contest both the criminal case and the divorce case at one place rather than in two different towns.
Thus, the State submitted that the Sessions Judge’s decision to transfer the complaint case had been taken after considering these facts and circumstances and that there was no illegality in it.
The Patna High Court then considered all the materials and the rival submissions. The Court noted that respondent no. 2 had shown that she was presently residing at Mohalla-Lohanipur, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District Patna.
The Court further noted that one divorce case, Divorce Case No. 1161/2017, was pending in Patna between respondent no. 2 and the son of the complainant. This was specifically mentioned in the impugned transfer order.
From a reading of the Sessions Judge’s order, the High Court found that the reason for transfer had been clearly stated. It was based on the material available on record.
The core reason was that respondent no. 2, a woman, was already contesting a divorce case in Patna against the complainant’s son, and asking her to attend criminal proceedings at Barh, while her matrimonial case was in Patna, would cause inconvenience.
The High Court observed that, from the perusal of the impugned order, there was “no illegality, irregularity and impropriety” in the decision of the Sessions Judge.
Importantly, the Court also recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioner had not been able to show how the transfer order was in any way illegal, irregular or improper.
The judgment notes that the petitioner’s side had “already conceded” that a divorce case was pending with the complainant’s son in the Civil Court (Family Court), Patna, and that it is inconvenient for a lady to contest cases at two different places.
In this backdrop, the High Court held that the transfer of Complaint Case No. 714(c)/2018 from Barh to Patna was justified on grounds of convenience and fairness, particularly keeping in view the position of a woman litigant who was already engaged in another related proceeding in Patna.
Therefore, the High Court concluded that the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant was “devoid of merit.” It refused to interfere with the transfer order of the Sessions Judge, Patna.
Accordingly, by paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Court dismissed Criminal Revision No. 566 of 2023. The effect is that the complaint case will now continue before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for complainants and accused persons who are involved in multiple related cases in different courts.
The Patna High Court has shown that when a woman is already contesting a matrimonial case in one city and living there, the criminal case connected to the same family dispute can be transferred there, if this does not harm the other side.
The Court treated the convenience of the woman accused as a real and valid reason for transfer, especially when the complainant’s own son is already a party before a Patna court.
For ordinary litigants, this means that transfer of a criminal case may be allowed where there are genuine reasons of convenience and fairness, and not merely on technical objections about where the incident took place.
It also shows that challenging such a transfer order in revision will not succeed unless one can clearly show some illegality, irregularity or serious prejudice caused by the transfer.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the Sessions Judge’s order transferring Complaint Case No. 714(c)/2018 from the court at Barh to the court at Patna was illegal, irregular or improper and liable to be set aside in revision.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the transfer was justified because respondent no. 2, a woman, was residing in Patna and contesting Divorce Case No. 1161/2017 there against the complainant’s son. Conducting the criminal case at Patna would not prejudice the complainant and would avoid inconvenience to respondent no. 2. Hence, the revision was dismissed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judgments or case law have been cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 566 of 2023; arising out of Complaint Case No. 714(c)/2018, P.S. Case No. 714 of 2018, Patna Complaint Case, District Patna; Criminal Miscellaneous (Transfer) Case No. 199/2022; Divorce Case No. 1161/2017 (as referred in the order).
Case Title: Mahendra Mahto v. The State of Bihar & Poonam Kumari
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 627
Advocates: Mr. Anand Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP for the State/respondent.
Nature of the Case: Criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Sessions Judge allowing a transfer petition and transferring a pending criminal complaint case from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barh, to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
