TRPCRL No.24 of 2006 Page 1 of 9

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

TRPCRL No.24 of 2006

CNR No. ODHC010196992006

Jaheda Jasmeen ....... Petitioner

-Versus-

Firoz Khan ....... Opposite Party

For Petitioner : Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra

Advocate

For Opposite Party : None

----------------------------

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 22.09.2026

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. Pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2026, the

learned District Judge, Nayagarh I/C, vide his letter

No.4532 dated 22.09.2026, has forwarded the status report

submitted by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-

S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, under letter No.1471 dated 22.09.2026

in 1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2006. From the said report, it is

TRPCRL No.24 of 2006 Page 2 of 9

revealed that 1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2006 is still pending , as

this Court, vide order dated 29.08.2006 passed in Misc.

Case No.29 of 2006, stayed further proceeding in 1.C.C.

Case No.14 of 2006. It is further revealed from the said

Repot that, 1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2006 now stands posted to

28.09.2026, awaiting intimation from this Court. That apart,

the L.C.R. is presently available with the Registry, being

called for by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2006. The

said report received from the Office is taken on record.

2. The present transfer petition has been preferred by

the Petitioner-wife, under Section 407 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, for transfer of the proceeding in 1.C.C.

Case No.14 of 2006, pending in the Court of learned

S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, to the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,

Bhubaneswar on the grounds detailed in the transfer

petition.

3. Office note indicates that the S.R. of the admission

notice issued to the Opposite Party has returned unserved

with the postal endorsement “Refused”. That apart, the

TRPCRL No.24 of 2006 Page 3 of 9

notice issued to the Opposite Party through Court process

was also served on him by way of affixture in his absence.

Hence, notice on the Opposite Party is held to be sufficient.

4. Since the transfer petition is pending for the last 20

years, the same is taken up for hearing and disposal in

absence of the Opposite Party, who is the Complainant in

1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2006.

5. At this stage, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the

Petitioners submits, Petitioner No.2, who was one of the co-

accused in 1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2006, has died in the

meantime. Hence, the present transfer petition, so far as

Petitioner No.2, stands abated and the prayer made in the

transfer petition is confined to Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3.

6. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners,

reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer petition,

submits that Petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the Opposite

Party, lodged an F.I.R. before Jatni Police Station, but the

same was not registered. Because of the said inaction on the

part of the Police, she filed a complaint case, i.e., 1.C.C.

TRPCRL No.24 of 2006 Page 4 of 9

Case No.115 of 2002, before the learned S.D.J.M.,

Bhubaneswar. The learned S.D.J.M., vide order dated

02.02.2002, forwarded the said complaint under Section

156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the I.I.C., Jatni P.S., for registration

of the same. Thereafter, the said complaint was registered

under Sections 498-A/34 of the I.P.C., read with Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 corresponding to

G.R. Case No.366 of 2002.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners,

further submits that the present Opposite Party and the in-

laws of Petitioner No.1 were released on bail pursuant to the

order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.2006

of 2002, subject to their surrendering before the learned

S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, on 23.03.2002. Thereafter, when

Petitioner No.1 came to Cuttack with her minor daughter for

her treatment and also to consult her Advocate, the

Opposite Party and his brother, namely, Amzad Khan,

scolded and threatened Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in front of the

main gate of this Court. Apprehending threat to her life, she

TRPCRL No.24 of 2006 Page 5 of 9

lodged an F.I.R. before Lalbag Police Station, Cuttack, under

Sections 341, 294, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C., vide P.S. Case

No.74 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No.416 of 2002,

pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack.

8. That apart, Petitioner No.1 also filed an application

under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from

the Opposite Party for herself and her minor daughter before

the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar, vide M.C.

No.109 of 2002. The learned Court below, after considering

the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the

Opposite Party to pay maintenance of Rs.300/- each to

Petitioner No.1 and her daughter from the date of the

application, i.e., 31.08.2002. Due to non-payment of the

said amount, distress warrant was issued against the

Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Opposite

Party attempted to kidnap the minor daughter on

08.12.2005 and 16.12.2005 from her school at Jatni, for

which Petitioner No.1 also lodged a complaint before Jatni

P.S. However, the O.I.C., Jatni P.S., did not accept the F.I.R.

TRPCRL No.24 of 2006 Page 6 of 9

9. Thereafter, to take revenge, the Opposite Party

intentionally filed a complaint case before the Court of the

learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, bearing number 1.C.C. Case

No.14 of 2006. The learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, vide order

dated 16.05.2006, took cognizance of the offences under

Sections 323, 364 and 34 of the I.P.C. and summoned the

Petitioners to appear on 11.07.2006 at 10.30 A.M. to face

the said proceeding.

10. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners

further submits, the Petitioner No.1 being a deserted lady,

having no income, it would be difficult on her part to attend

the proceeding at Nayagarh, so also to bear the litigation

expenses. That apart, there is a life threat, if she appears

before the Court at Nayagarh.

11. Though a stand has been taken in the transfer

petition that Petitioner No.2 was an old lady aged about 69

years and was suffering from various ailments and was

unable to travel to attend the proceeding at Nayagarh, since

TRPCRL No.24 of 2006 Page 7 of 9

she has died in the meantime, the said ground is no more

available to be considered in the present transfer petition.

12. However, taking into consideration the grounds

urged in the transfer petition, more particularly, the conduct

of the Opposite Party-husband, as detailed above, this Court

is inclined to allow the prayer made in the transfer petition.

13. Since the T.C.R. in 1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2006 is

available with the Registry, the Office is directed to

immediately transmit the original records in 1.C.C. Case

No.14 of 2006 to the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.,

Nayagarh, who shall, in turn, transmit the said record to the

Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, at the earliest,

preferably within a period of seven days from the date of

receipt of the record from this Court.

14. On receiving the case record in 1.C.C. Case No.14 of

2006 from the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, the

Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar shall re-register

the said case, if so required, and proceed further in

accordance with law, giving due opportunity to the parties

TRPCRL No.24 of 2006 Page 8 of 9

and shall try to conclude the proceeding 1.C.C. Case No.14

of 2006 at the earliest.

15. Since the Opposite Party -husband refused to

receive notice and chose not to appear in the present case,

the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, after receiving the

records, shall issue notice to the Parties, and thereafter

shall proceed further in 1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2006 in

accordance with law.

16. The parties are directed not to seek for unnecessary

adjournments and cooperate with the learned S.D.J.M.,

Bhubaneswar for early disposal of 1.C.C. Case No.14 of

2006, as directed above.

17. With the said observation and direction, the

transfer petition stands allowed and disposed of.

18. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this

Judgment to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, so

also the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar enabling

the said Courts to act in terms of the observations made

above.

TRPCRL No.24 of 2006 Page 9 of 9

19. Interim order dated 29.08.2006 passed in M.C.

No.29 of 2006 stands vacated. The I.A. stands disposed of

accordingly.

Urgent certified copy of this Judgment be granted

on proper application as per rules.

….………..……………

S.K. Mishra, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

Dated, 22

nd September, 2026/Prasant