Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

JYOTI MISHRA versus DHANANJAYA MISHRA

Decided
27 August 2010
Judges listed
AFTAB ALAM, RAJENDRA MAL LODHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 229 · 2010 INSC 543
Also cited as
  • (2010) 8 SCC 803 (11 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (interior_gap). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

We have heard counsel for the petitioner.

p. 230, margin D

2

No. one _appears forthe respondent despite service of notice. -3. The petitioner is the estranged wife of the respondent. While still living with him at Hyderabad, she had filed a written report before the· Station House Officer, P.S. Alwal, Secunderabad, that led to the institution of FIR No. 47012009 dated September 09, 2009 under Section 498-A of the Penal Code citing her husband Dhananjaya Mishra (the sole respondent) and five others as accused. The Police, after investigation,· submitted charge s.heet and the proceedings against the accused are now pending before the Vlth Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad in CC No. 804/20,09.

p. 230, margin E

4

In the meanwhile, the petitioner left her husband at Hyderabad and came to live with her parents at Indore. She has filed this petition for transferring the criminal case pending before the Vlth Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad to a court of competent jurisdiction at Indore, Maahya Pradesh.

pp. 230–231, margin G

5

The first. thing that needs to be noticed is that in the . Transfer Petitions only the hu-sbaod Dhananjaya Mishra is impleaded as~ respondent. ·The oth~r" accused ·in the criminll" 8 case are not made parties to these Transfer Petitions. The Transfer Petitions are, therefore, liaple to be dismissed on that score alone. '

p. 231, margin A

6

Otherwise also, we are not inclined to transfer 'a criminal ·case from one State to another solely on the ground 'that it would be more convenient for the complainant (wife) to .prosecute the matter there. It is true that in cases of dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, tnis Court shows much indulgence to the wife and ordinarily transfers the case to a place where it would be more convenient for the wife to prosecute the proceedings. . .

p. 231, margin A

7

But a criminal case is on a somewhat different footing. The accused may not be able to attend the court proceedings· at lndo~e for many reasons, -9n~ 9f ~~!f~ may be 'financial.~ constraints, but the consequences of nor.-appearance .of the· accused before the Indore Court would be quite drastic. Having regard to the consequences of r:ion-appearance,of.th~.acqu~ed in a criminal trial, we ~ ~ ~ ~ are loath to entertain the petitioner's -prayer -~ ~ ~..... for transfer, In a criminal proceeding, tne right of the accused to a fair trial and a proper opportunity tci defen'd himself car1not be ignored for the convenience of the complainant simply' because she Jiappens.to,be the estranged wife. . .

p. 231, margin D

8

For all, these reasons, we are not inclined to acceRt the prayer for transter in these_ca~es. · '. '," -9: The Tran.sfer Petitions are dismissed.-· . . '· ·~ - . ..... ~ . ~ ~ - -- -- . R.D: · -.- -- - Transfer. Petitions •dismissed:

p. 231, margin F