HC sets norms for shifting dowry cases

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken note of the flooding of courts with petitions seeking transfer of dowry harassment cases based on the convenience of the complainant-wife and has held that the relative convenience for everyone involved. This assertion came as Justice Sumeet Goel laid down six guiding principles for transfer of trials.

Justice Goel said that the convenience of the woman complainant was undoubtedly an important consideration, but this cannot override the relative ease and hardship faced by other stakeholders including the accused, witnesses and the State – the main prosecutor .

“The complainant/victim-wife in an FIR related to a matrimonial offense has the right to participate in the trial in accordance with law. Yet the state is the main plaintiff. When assessing a transfer plea, the convenience, indeed the relative convenience, of all involved must be taken into account,” Judge Goel said.

Judge Goel noted that matrimonial disputes, such as a divorce petition, were mainly between the couple, requiring her to pursue her case independently and exclusively. But the state/police was the main prosecuting agency in FIR cases.

In laying down the principles, the court ruled that a transfer could only be ordered if a fair trial was not possible at the place where the proceedings were taking place. Such views had to be based on ‘tangible material’ and not merely on guesses.

The Bench added that the erroneous order of a trial judge, as corrected by a higher court, could not automatically lead to an inference of bias. It found that “very strong/convincing material” was necessary to prove sufficient prejudice to justify transferring the trial on that ground. The mere fact that the other party to a request for transfer was a lawyer or had a close relationship with a lawyer practicing in the court was insufficient for transfer unless clear prejudice is shown.

Judge Goel said there were no universal parameters for ordering the transfer of trials.