IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. /2018

(Under Section 406 Cr.P.C. for transfer of DVC No. 22/2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 116/2017
titled as Mrs. Nazish Afroz v. Mr. Tabrez Ahmed pending before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Chennai in the court of Additional Mahila Court, Egmore at Allikulam
Complex, Chennai – 3 (FAC) to the Court of Spl. CJM – CBI (AP), Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Tabrez Ahmed

……… Petitioner

Versus
Mrs. Nazish Afroz
……… Respondent

WITH
CRL. M.P. NO. OF 2018
APPLICATION FOR EX-PARTY STAY

WITH
CRL. M.P. NO. OF 2018
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM
FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: SATYAJEET KUMAR

 INDEX

S.No. Page No. of part to Remarks

which it belongs
Part I Part II
(Contents (Contents
of Paper of file
Book) alone)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

Court Fee

1. Listing Proforma A-A1 A-A1

2. Cover Page of Paper A-2

book

3. Index of Record of A-3

Proceedings

4. Defect List A-4

5. Note Sheet NS1 to

6. Synopsis & List of B-

Dates

7. Transfer Petition with

Affidavit

8. ANNEXURE P-1
A translated copy of the
FIR dated 18.08.2015
lodged at PS Vikas
Nagar, Lucknow.

9. ANNEXURE P-2
True copy of the a
complaint u/s 12 of the
DV Act vide case no.
296/2016 in the Court
of ACJM-CBI (AP), in
Lucknow dated
02.05.2016.

10. ANNEXURE P-3

A translated copy of
order dated 08.07.2016
passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, CBI
(AC), Lucknow in
Complaint No.296 of
2016.
11. ANNEXURE P-4
True copy of Complaint
u/s 12 of the Protection
of Women from
Domestic Violence Act,
2005 bearing DVC
No.22 of 2017 filed
before the Metropolitan
Magistrate Chennai
dated Nil July-
September 2016.

12. ANNEXURE P-5

True copy of reply to
the notice was sent by
the Petitioner on
03.10.2016.

13. ANNEXURE P-6

A true and Translated
copy of the order dated
15.06.2017 of the
Metropolitan
Magistrate, Chennai in
Domestic Violence
Case No. 22 of 2017.

14. ANNEXURE P-7

A copy of the letter
dated 12.01.2018 sent
by Joe Anand,
Advocate on behalf of
the respondent to the
petitioner.

15. ANNEXURE P-8

A copy of reply dated
06.02.2018 to the letter
submitted before
Additional Mahila Court
Egmore at Allikulam
Complex, Chennai-3
(FAC) in Crl. M.P. No.
116/2017 in DVC No.
22/2017.

16. Application for stay

17. Application for

exemption from filing
official translation

18. F/M
19. V/A
 SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES

That this is a transfer petition u/s 406 of The Code of Criminal Procedure

[hereinafter referred to as “Cr.PC”] r/w Rule XLI of Supreme Court Rules,

2013 for the transfer of application u/s 12 of The Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as the “DV Act”]

bearing No. DVC 22/2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 116/2017 titled as Mrs.

NazishAfroz v. Mr. Tabrez Ahmed filed by the Respondent (w/o the

Petitioner) before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in the court of

Additional Mahila Court, Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai – 3 (FAC)

to the court of Spl. CJM – CBI (AP), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

Mrs. Nazish Afroz d/o Mr. Ali Ahmad r/o House No. 356/255/30 Alam Nagar

Road, Ashraf Nagar, City Lucknow, U.P got married to Mr. Tabrez Ahmed

S/o Mr. Shamsul Hasan E-6/125, Sector N-2 Aliganj, Lucknow according to

Muslim rites and rituals at Ali Tarang marriage hall, Rajajipuram, Lucknow

on 22.03.2014.After marriage she came to live in her marital home bearing

No. E-6/125, Sector N-2 Aliganj, Lucknow and performed her matrimonial

obligations. Soon after, some differences arose between the parties which

could not get resolved. Being aggrieved, the Respondent lodged an FIR in

the Police Station, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow vide Crime No. 206/2015 u/s

498-A/323/504/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961 on 18.08.2015 wherein the police has submitted Charge sheet in

the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate – IV, Lucknow. (Court No. 28)

and now the case is under trial. The Respondent filed another case No.

296/2016 u/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 on 02.05.2016 in the court of ACJM – CBI (AP), Lucknow claiming

protection orders;

a) Prohibition from committing any act of domestic violence u/s 18

b) Residential orders u/s 19

c) Maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month u/s 23

That subsequently, on 08.07.2016 the Complainant moved an

application in the Court of ACJM – CBI (AP), Lucknow for

withdrawal of her case u/s 12 of the DV Act stating that she does

not want any action against the opposite party which was allowed

by the Spl. CJM – CBI (AP). Soon thereafter, she lodged a case

u/s 12 of the DV Act in the court of the Magistrate, District Social

Welfare Office, District Collectorate Office Complex, Singaravelar

Maligai, 8th Floor, Rajajisalai, Chennai which issued a notice in

Tamil language about fixing the date as 04.10.2016 to which a

reply was sent by the Petitioner on 03.10.2016.The Petitioner

opposes the case filed in Chennai on the following grounds:

a) Both the parties are residents of Lucknow, U.P.

b) Marriage between the parties was solemnized at Lucknow

c) Criminal case against the Petitioner is pending in Lucknow Court

d) Allegation of occurrence of the alleged crime is set to have been at

Lucknow In spite of the above stated facts by the Petitioner, the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai – III, in the court of the Addl.

Mahila Court, Egmore, at Allikulam Complex, Chennai – 3 (FAC)

passed an ex-parte order against the Petitioner and in favour of

the Respondent dated 15.06.2016 directing the Petitioner

 i. u/s 18 of the DV Act to restrain from committing any kind of

domestic violence as against the Respondent

ii. u/s 18(e) of the DV Act restraining the Petitioner from using,

alienating or in any kind disposing the stridhan property till it is

returned to the Petitioner

iii. u/s 19(8) of the DV Act to return the Stridhan articles within 2

months of the date of the passing of the order

iv. u/s 20 of the DV Act to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 per month

towards monthly maintenance payable to the Respondent on or

before the 10th day of every month

v. u/s 20 of the DV Act to pay the Respondent monetary relief of

Rs. 75,000 towards medical expenses and litigation costs within

2 months of the date of the passing of the order

vi. to pay compensation of Rs. 10 Lac towards the physical,

mental agony caused by the Petitioner within 2 months of the

date of the passing of the order

vii. u/s 19(7) and 20(4) of the DV Act, the Protection Officer

Lucknow and Chennai Station House Officer to extend their

cooperation to execute the order in accordance with law.

Further, it is stated that the Respondent had withdrawn the

case instituted u/s 12 of the DV Act on 08.07.2016. Thus, as a

matter of fact, the Respondent has no right to institute/file a

similar case on the same grounds in Chennai. Such a filing is

challenged by the Petitioner on the following grounds;

 a) The residential address of the Respondent is 356/255/30 Alam

Nagar Road, Ashraf Nagar, City Lucknow, U.P.

b) Her in-laws’ address is E-6/125, Sector N-2 Aliganj, Lucknow

c) The marriage was solemnized at Ali Tarang marriage hall,

Rajajipuram

d) The FIR was lodged by the Respondent in Lucknow

e) The case instituted by the Respondent against the Petitioner u/s

498A/323/504/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3/4 Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 are pending in Lucknow;

Thus, the jurisdiction rests solely with the court of the ACJM-IV at

Lucknow. Moreover, the Petitioner is employed in K.K.V. College,

Charbagh on a contractual basis temporarily. He draws a meagre

income amounting to Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is very hard for

him to travel all the way to Chennai to attend the hearing of the

case and to bear the travel and litigation costs involved.

DATE EVENT

22.03.2014 The petitioner Tabrez Ahmed got married to

Respondent NazishAfroz according to Muslim

rites and rituals at Ali Tarang marriage hall,

Rajajipuram, Lucknow.

18.08.2015 FIR lodged against the Petitioner by the

Respondent with PS Vikas Nagar Lucknow vide

Crime No. 206/2015 u/s 498-A/323/504/506 of

IPC and 3/4 of the DP Act after certain disputes

 arose between them.

02.05.2016 The Respondent filed a complaint u/s 12 of the

DV Act vide case no. 296/2016 in the Court of

ACJM-CBI (AP), in Lucknow claiming protection

orders;

 Prohibition from committing any act of

domestic violence u/s 18

 Residential orders u/s 19

 Maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month u/s

23

08.07.2016 The Respondent withdrew her complaint

instituted u/s 12 of the DV Act stating that she

wants no action against the opposite parties.

Her application was allowed.

July 2016- A case was filed by the Respondent u/s 12 of

September the DV Act at Egmore, Chennai.

2016

19.09.2016 A notice in Tamil Language was issued to the

Petitioner vide case no. 2210 served to him on

26.09.2016 from the Protection Officer, DV Act

District Social Welfare Office, District

Collectorate Office Complex,

SingaravelarMaligai, 8th Floor, RajajiSalai,

Chennai informing the petitioner that a case u/s

 12 DV act had been instituted against the

petitioner in Chennai by the Respondent. A date

of hearing was fixed for hearing on 04.10.2016.

03.10.2016 The reply to the notice was sent by the

Petitioner on 03.10.2016 claiming the case to be

false on following grounds:

a) Both the parties are residents of

Lucknow, U.P.

b) Marriage between the parties was

solemnized at Lucknow

c) Criminal case against the Petitioner is

pending in Lucknow Court

d) Allegation of occurrence of the alleged

crime is set to have been at Lucknow

15.06.2017 An Ex-Parte order was passed by the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai-3(FAC),

Additional Mahila Court Complex, Egmore

against the Petitioner in Domestic Violence

Case No. 22 of 2017 directing him to: -

i. u/s 18 of the DV Act to restrain from

committing any kind of domestic

violence as against the Respondent

ii. u/s 18(e) of the DV Act restraining

the Petitioner from using, alienating

or in any kind disposing the

 ‘Stridhan’ property till it is returned to

the Petitioner

iii. u/s 19(8) of the DV Act to return the

Stridhan articles within 2 months of

the date of the passing of the order

iv. u/s 20 of the DV Act to pay a sum of

Rs. 25,000 per month towards

monthly maintenance payable to the

Respondent on or before the 10th

day of every month

v. u/s 20 of the DV Act to pay the

Respondent monetary relief of Rs.

75,000 towards medical expenses

and litigation costs within 2 months

of the date of the passing of the

order

vi. to pay compensation of Rs. 10 Lac

towards the physical, mental agony

caused by the Petitioner within 2

months of the date of the passing of

the order.

12.01.2018 That a letter was sent by Mr. Joe Anand,

advocate on behalf of the Respondent to the

Petitioner asking him to appear before the Addl.

Mahila Court, Allikulam Chennai by 01.02.2018

 either in person or through a counsel failing

which the matter would be heard and decided in

his absence.

06.02.2018 A reply to the Letter Dated 12.01.2018 sent by

Mr. Joe Anand, advocate on behalf of the

Respondent was sent by the Petitioner on

06.02.2018, explaining the details of the case

and the hardships he would have to face

following the order passed by the Chennai Court

which are:

a. That the Petitioner is employed in K.K.V.

College, Charbagh on a contractual basis

temporarily. It is almost not permitted for

him to take leave from his job for a long

period as the same would result in

termination of his job.

b. He draws a meagre income amounting to

Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is very hard for

him to travel all the way to Chennai to

attend the hearing of the case and to bear

the travel and litigation costs involved.

That Section 27 of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 says:

Jurisdiction—

1. The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first

 class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the

case maybe, within the local limits of which—

a. the person aggrieved permanently or

temporarily resides or carries on business or

is employed; or

b. the respondent resides or carries on

business or is employed; or

c. the cause of action has arisen, shall be the

competent court to grant a protection order

and other orders under this Act and to try

offences under this Act.

2. Any order made this Act shall be

enforceable throughout India.

28. Procedure—

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all

proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21,

22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall

be governed by the provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the

court from laying down its own procedure for

disposal of an application under section 12 or

under sub-section (2) of section 23.

Sec. 177 CrPC- Ordinary place of inquiry and

trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired

into and tried by a Court within whose local

jurisdiction it was committed. These provisions

make it evident that for a case under Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence to be

instituted at a place, that place should be the

one where the Petitioner or Respondent

normally resides or carries on business or

profession and also the cause of action must

have arisen at that place. Therefore, in the case

at hand the Chennai court cannot exercise

jurisdiction because

a) Both the parties are residents of Lucknow,

U.P.

b) Marriage between the parties was

solemnized at Lucknow

c) Criminal case against the Petitioner is

pending in Lucknow Court

d) Allegation of occurrence of the alleged crime

is set to have been at Lucknow

Thus, only the Lucknow court has the

jurisdiction to entertain any suit/application filed

by either of the parties.

That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Krishna Veni Nigam V Harish Nigam (Transfer

Petition(C) No.1912 of 2014) has held that the

doctrine of “forum non conveniens” should be

assessed critically in case of transfer petitions.

According to this doctrine, the forum which is

best suited for both the parties should be the

place of institution of the suit. In other words, the

court/forum where fair trial can be held should

be the place for filing of the case. Thus,

according to the above stated principle Lucknow

and not Chennai is the proper place for filing of

the present case. The Petitioner and the

Respondents have been residents of Lucknow

since their childhood. Their families have been

living in Lucknow since a long time. The

marriage of the parties took place in Lucknow

and the case was originally filed in Lucknow.

That the petitioner has a private and temporary

job on a contractual basis which is uptil

23.11.2018 in K.K.V. College, Charbagh,

Lucknow and his salary is a meagre income

amounting to Rs. 12,000/- per month which is

insufficient for his own survival and does not

even take care of the bare necessities of life.

That the Respondent filed a complaint u/s 12 of

the DV Act in the court of ACJM – CBI (AP),

Lucknow on 02.05.2016 and later withdrew the

same on 08.07.2016 under the order of the

Court and refiled the same in Chennai. At this

point it is pertinent to note that all the other

cases instituted by the Respondent in Lucknow

are still pending trial. From this, it is clear that

the Respondent has withdrawn and refiled the

case in Chennai just to harass the Petitioner and

misuse the legal remedy available to her.

Further, in the case of Sukhwinder Singh v State

of Delhi 2001 (8) SCC 630, 2002 SCC (Cr) 11

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

“criminal proceedings relating to the same

offence cannot be carried on at the same time in

more than one criminal court”. In this case, a

criminal case was instituted in the court of ACJM

Karnal Haryana. Further in this case the court

said, “the same should not continue because the

case arising out of the same incident was

already pending before the Sessions Court at

Delhi and the same was to continue in

accordance with law.”

That the Respondent is working as a Physical

Therapist in Chennai and is drawing a decent

monthly income. Also, she has her family home

in Lucknow which very well establishes the fact

 that she can afford to travel to Lucknow for the

case and stay there as well.

21.08.2018 HENCE THIS TRANSFER PETITION.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. /2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Tabrez Ahmed

S/o Mr. Shamsul Hasan
E-6/125, Sector N-2
Aliganj, Lucknow, U.P.
……... Petitioner
Versus

Mrs. Nazish Afroz

D/o Mr. Ali Ahmad
NO. 1 Sachidanandam Street,
Perambur Barracks Road,
Kosapet Chennai- 600012
……... Respondent

TRANSFER PETITION UNDER SECTION 406 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE R/W RULE XLI OF SUPREME COURT
RULES, 2013 FOR THE TRANSFER OF APPLICATION U/S 12 OF
THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ACT, 2005 BEARING NO. DVC 22/2017 IN CRL. M.P. NO.
116/2017 TITLED AS MRS. NAZISH AFROZ V. MR. TABREZ
AHMED PENDING THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CHENNAI IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT,
EGMORE AT ALLIKULAM COMPLEX, CHENNAI – 3 (FAC) TO
THE COURT OF SPL. CJM – CBI (AP), LUCKNOW, UTTAR
PRADESH.

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

 1. That this is a transfer petition u/s 406 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure r/w Rule XLI of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 for the

transfer of application u/s 12 of The Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing No. DVC 22/2017 in Crl.

M.P. No. 116/2017 titled as Mrs. Nazish Afroz v. Mr. Tabrez

Ahmed pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in the

court of Additional Mahila Court, Egmore at Allikulam Complex,

Chennai – 3 (FAC) to the Court of Spl. CJM – CBI (AP), Lucknow,

Uttar Pradesh.

2. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition before this Hon’ble

Court of any other Courts for the similar relief.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE:

3.1 That on 22.03.2014 the petitioner Tabrez Ahmed got married to

Respondent NazishAfroz according to Muslim rites and rituals at Ali

Tarang marriage hall, Rajajipuram, Lucknow.

3.2 That on 18.08.2015, the FIR lodged against the Petitioner by the

Respondent with PS Vikas Nagar Lucknow vide Crime No. 206/2015

u/s 498-A/323/504/506 of IPC and 3/4 of the DP Act after certain

disputes arose between them. A translated copy of the FIR dated

18.08.2015 lodged at PS Vikas Nagar, Lucknow is annexed hereto

and marked as Annexure P-1 Pg.

3.3 That on 02.05.2016 the Respondent filed a complaint u/s 12 of the

DV Act vide case no. 296/2016 in the Court of ACJM-CBI (AP), in

Lucknow claiming protection orders;

 Prohibition from committing any act of domestic violence u/s

18

 Residential orders u/s 19

 Maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month u/s 23

True copy of the a complaint u/s 12 of the DV Act vide case no.

296/2016 in the Court of ACJM-CBI (AP), in Lucknow dated

02.05.2016 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P-2

Pg.

3.4 That on 08.07.2016, the Respondent withdrew her complaint

instituted u/s 12 of the DV Act stating that she wants no action

against the opposite parties. Her application was allowed. A

translated copy of order dated 08.07.2016 passed by Chief Judicial

Magistrate, CBI (AC), Lucknow in Complaint No.296 of 2016 is

annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P-3 Pg.

3.5 That in July 2016- September 2016 a case was filed by the

Respondent u/s 12 of the DV Act at Egmore, Chennai. True copy of

Complaint u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 bearing DVC No.22 of 2017 filed before the

Metropolitan Magistrate Chennai dated Nil July-September 2016 is

annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P-4 Pg.

3.6 That on 19.09.2016, a notice in Tamil Language was issued to the

Petitioner vide case no. 2210 served to him on 26.09.2016 from the

Protection Officer, DV Act District Social Welfare Office, District

Collectorate Office Complex, SingaravelarMaligai, 8th Floor,

RajajiSalai, Chennai informing the petitioner that a case u/s 12 DV

act had been instituted against the petitioner in Chennai by the

Respondent. A date of hearing was fixed for hearing on 04.10.2016.

3.7 That the reply to the notice was sent by the Petitioner on 03.10.2016

claiming the case to be false on following grounds:

e) Both the parties are residents of Lucknow, U.P.

f) Marriage between the parties was solemnized at Lucknow

g) Criminal case against the Petitioner is pending in Lucknow

Court

h) Allegation of occurrence of the alleged crime is set to have

been at Lucknow

True copy of reply to the notice was sent by the Petitioner on

03.10.2016 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P-5 Pg.

3.8 That on 15.06.2017, an Ex-Parte order was passed by the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai-3(FAC), Additional Mahila Court

Complex, Egmore against the Petitioner in Domestic Violence Case

No. 22 of 2017 directing him to: -

i. u/s 18 of the DV Act to restrain from committing any kind of

domestic violence as against the Respondent

 ii. u/s 18(e) of the DV Act restraining the Petitioner from using,

alienating or in any kind disposing the ‘Stridhan’ property till it is

returned to the Petitioner

iii. u/s 19(8) of the DV Act to return the Stridhan articles within 2

months of the date of the passing of the order

iv. u/s 20 of the DV Act to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 per month

towards monthly maintenance payable to the Respondent on or

before the 10th day of every month

v. u/s 20 of the DV Act to pay the Respondent monetary relief of

Rs. 75,000 towards medical expenses and litigation costs within

2 months of the date of the passing of the order

vi. to pay compensation of Rs. 10 Lac towards the physical,

mental agony caused by the Petitioner within 2 months of the

date of the passing of the order

A true and Translated copy of the order dated 15.06.2017 of the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Domestic Violence Case

No. 22 of 2017 is Annexed and marked as Annexure No. P-6

Pg.

3.9 That a letter dated 12.01.2018 was sent by Mr. Joe Anand, advocate

on behalf of the Respondent to the Petitioner asking him to appear

before the Addl. Mahila Court, Allikulam Chennai by 01.02.2018

either in person or through a counsel failing which the matter would

be heard and decided in his absence. A copy of the letter dated

12.01.2018 sent by Joe Anand, Advocate on behalf of the respondent

to the petitioner is marked and annexed as Annexure P-7 Pg

3.10 That the reply to the Letter Dated 12.01.2018 sent by Mr. Joe Anand,

advocate on behalf of the Respondent was sent by the Petitioner on

06.02.2018, explaining the details of the case and the hardships he

would have to face following the order passed by the Chennai Court

which are:

a. That the Petitioner is employed in K.K.V. College, Charbagh on

a contractual basis temporarily. It is almost not permitted for

him to take leave from his job for a long period as the same

would result in termination of his job.

b. He draws a meagre income amounting to Rs. 12,000/- per

month. It is very hard for him to travel all the way to Chennai to

attend the hearing of the case and to bear the travel and

litigation costs involved.

A copy of reply dated 06.02.2018 to the letter submitted before

Additional Mahila Court Egmore at Allikulam Complex,

Chennai-3 (FAC) in Crl. M.P. No. 116/2017 in DVC No. 22/2017

is annexed and marked as Annexure P-8 Pg.

3.11 That Section 27 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 says:

Jurisdiction—

1. The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the

Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case maybe, within the local limits

of which—
 a. the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides

or carries on business or is employed; or

b. the respondent resides or carries on business or is

employed; or

c. the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent

court to grant a protection order and other orders under

this Act and to try offences under this Act.

2. Any order made this Act shall be enforceable throughout

India.

28. Procedure—

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings

under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences

under section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying

down its own procedure for disposal of an application under

section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.

Sec. 177 CrPC- Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every

offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court

within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. These

provisions make it evident that for a case under Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence to be instituted at a place, that

place should be the one where the Petitioner or Respondent

normally resides or carries on business or profession and also

the cause of action must have arisen at that place. Therefore, in

 the case at hand the Chennai court cannot exercise jurisdiction

because

a) Both the parties are residents of Lucknow, U.P.

b) Marriage between the parties was solemnized at Lucknow

c) Criminal case against the Petitioner is pending in Lucknow

Court

d) Allegation of occurrence of the alleged crime is set to have

been at Lucknow

Thus, only the Lucknow court has the jurisdiction to entertain

any suit/application filed by either of the parties.

3.12 That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Veni Nigam V

Harish Nigam (Transfer Petition(C) No.1912 of 2014) has held that

the doctrine of “forum non conveniens” should be assessed critically

in case of transfer petitions. According to this doctrine, the forum

which is best suited for both the parties should be the place of

institution of the suit. In other words, the court/forum where fair trial

can be held should be the place for filing of the case. Thus, according

to the above stated principle Lucknow and not Chennai is the proper

place for filing of the present case. The Petitioner and the

Respondents have been residents of Lucknow since their childhood.

Their families have been living in Lucknow since a long time. The

marriage of the parties took place in Lucknow and the case was

originally filed in Lucknow.

3.13 That the petitioner has a private and temporary job on a contractual

basis which is uptil 23.11.2018 in K.K.V. College, Charbagh, Lucknow

and his salary is a meagre income amounting to Rs. 12,000/- per

month which is insufficient for his own survival and does not even

take care of the bare necessities of life.

3.14 That the Respondent filed a complaint u/s 12 of the DV Act in the

court of ACJM – CBI (AP), Lucknow on 02.05.2016 and later

withdrew the same on 08.07.2016 under the order of the Court and

refiled the same in Chennai. At this point it is pertinent to note that all

the other cases instituted by the Respondent in Lucknow are still

pending trial. From this, it is clear that the Respondent has withdrawn

and refiled the case in Chennai just to harass the Petitioner and

misuse the legal remedy available to her. Further, in the case of

Sukhwinder Singh v State of Delhi 2001 (8) SCC 630, 2002 SCC (Cr)

11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “criminal proceedings

relating to the same offence cannot be carried on at the same time in

more than one criminal court”. In this case, a criminal case was

instituted in the court of ACJM Karnal Haryana. Further in this case

the court said, “the same should not continue because the case

arising out of the same incident was already pending before the

Sessions Court at Delhi and the same was to continue in accordance

with law.”

3.15 That the Respondent is working as a Physical Therapist in Chennai

and is drawing a decent monthly income. Also, she has her family
 home in Lucknow which very well establishes the fact that she can

afford to travel to Lucknow for the case and stay there as well.

GROUNDS

1. That u/s 27 of the DV Act and u/s 177 CrPC which talk about

jurisdiction of the court the case could not have been instituted in

Chennai instead of Lucknow as:

a) Both the parties are residents of Lucknow, U.P.

b) Marriage between the parties was solemnized at Lucknow

c) Criminal case against the Petitioner is pending in Lucknow Court

d) Allegation of occurrence of the alleged crime is set to have been at

Lucknow

2. That in the case of Sukhwinder Singh v State of Delhi 2001 (8) SCC

630, 2002 SCC (Cr) 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

“criminal proceedings relating to the same offence cannot be carried

on at the same time in more than one criminal court”. Likewise, in the

present case the case u/s 12 of the DV Act had already been filed in

Lucknow which was subsequently withdrawn and refiled in Chennai

which is not only bad in law and done solely for the purpose of

harassing the Petitioner.

3. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Veni Nigam V

Harish Nigam (Transfer Petition(C) No.1912 of 2014) has held that

the doctrine of “ forum non conveniens” should be assessed critically

in case of transfer petitions. According to this doctrine, the forum

which is best suited for both the parties should be the place of

institution of the suit. In other words, the court/forum where fair trial
 can be held should be the place for filing of the case. Thus, according

to the above stated principle Lucknow and not Chennai is the proper

place for filing of the present case. The Petitioner and the

Respondents have been residents of Lucknow since their childhood.

Their families have been living in Lucknow since a long time. The

marriage of the parties took place in Lucknow and the case was

originally filed in Lucknow.

4. That in the case of EluriRaji Reddy and Ors. v. State of Delhi and Anr

2004 Cri LJ 2555, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that as the

wife had a house in Andhra Pradesh and her parents were living

there it would be proper to transfer the cases filed by her at Delhi to a

court in Andhra Pradesh as sought by her husband. Likewise, the

respondent has always been a resident of Lucknow and has her

family home in Lucknow as well. Their families have been living in

Lucknow since a long time.

5. That the respondent has always been a resident of Lucknow and has

her family home in Lucknow as well. She has stated that she is

staying at her brother’s place as her ‘Temporary Residence’ in

Chennai and also supported it with an affidavit. But there is no

affidavit of the brother to prove that the respondent is actually staying

with her brother. This casts a doubt on her statement and draws an

assumption towards the fact that she has gone to Chennai for the

sole purpose of filing the case against the respondents and misuse

the means of justice. For this reason, her stay in Chennai cannot be

termed as a ‘Temporary Residence’.

 6. That the Petitioner is employed in K.K.V. College, Charbagh on a

contractual basis temporarily. He draws a meagre income amounting

to Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is very hard for him to travel all the way

to Chennai to attend the hearing of the case and to bear the travel

and litigation costs involved. The Petitioner does not enjoy a

permanent job and travelling to Chennai would entail considerable

leave from work which the Petitioner cannot afford due to the

temporary nature of the job.

7. That the Petitioner is neither a native of Chennai nor does he have

any familiarity with the said place. As such, engaging a lawyer would

prove difficult for him because of the difference in vernacular and the

cultural barrier.

PRAYER

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Transfer bearing No. DVC 22/2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 116/2017 titled as
Mrs. Nazish Afroz v. Mr. Tabrez Ahmed pending before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in the court of Additional Mahila
Court, Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai – 3 (FAC) to the Court
of Spl. CJM – CBI (AP), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

(b) Pass such any other and further order/s as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

Prashant Shukla
Advocate
(SATYAJEET KUMAR)
Advocate for the Petitioner
Drawn on: 20.08.2018
Filed on: 21.08.2018
New Delhi
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER:

Mr. Tabrez Ahmed ……... Petitioner

Versus
Mrs. Nazish Afroz ……... Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. Tabrez Ahmed S/o Mr. Shamsul Hasan R/o E-6/125, Sector N-2 Aliganj,
Lucknow at present at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as
hereunder.

1. I state that I am the petitioner in the aforesaid matter and am fully conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the present case and hence competent to swear the
instant affidavit.

2. I state that I have read over and explained the accompanying Transfer Petition
(page Nos. to ), (Paras 1 to ), Synopsis & List of Dates (pages Nos.B to ),
and Crl. M.Ps. and understood the contents therein and state that the same are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

3. I state that the annexure annexed to the Transfer Petition are true and correct
copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to 3
of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief, no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Affirmed on this the 21st day of August, 20182016 at New Delhi.

DEPONENT
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRL. MISC. PETITION NO. OF 2018

IN
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER:

Mr. Tabrez Ahmed

……... Petitioner

Versus
Mrs. Nazish Afroz
……... Respondent

AN APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE STAY

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner submit this petition under Section 406 Cr.P.C. for

Transfer bearing No. DVC 22/2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 116/2017 titled as

Mrs. Nazish Afroz v. Mr. Tabrez Ahmed pending before the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in the court of Additional Mahila

Court, Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai – 3 (FAC) to the Court

of Spl. CJM – CBI (AP), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh;

2. That the Petitioner and the Respondent are resident of Chennai,

Tamil Naidu to harass the Petitioner only. So the proceeding in the

 complaint case may be stayed till the pendency of the present

petition.

PRAYER

In the above circumstances it is therefore most respectfully prayed

that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the proceeding DVC No. 22/2017 in

Crl. M.P. No. 116/2017 titled as Mrs. Nazish Afroz v. Mr. Tabrez

Ahmed pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in the

court of Additional Mahila Court, Egmore at Allikulam Complex,

Chennai – 3 (FAC);

(b) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

FILED BY:
Filed on: 21.08.2018
New Delhi
(SATYAJEET KUMAR)
Advocate for the Petitioner
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRL. MISC. PETITION NO. OF 2018

IN
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER:

Mr. Tabrez Ahmed

……... Petitioner

Versus
Mrs. Nazish Afroz
……... Respondent

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL

TRANSLATION

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner submit this petition under Section 406 Cr.P.C. for

Transfer bearing No. DVC 22/2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 116/2017 titled as

Mrs. Nazish Afroz v. Mr. Tabrez Ahmed pending before the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in the court of Additional Mahila

Court, Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai – 3 (FAC) to the Court

of Spl. CJM – CBI (AP), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh;

2. That the Annexure P-1, P-3 & P-5 filed with Transfer Petition are in

Hindi, which have been translated by the Advocate in English as the

matter is of urgent nature.

PRAYER
In the above circumstances it is therefore most respectfully prayed

that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) exempt the Petitioner from filing the official translated copy of the

annexure P-1, P-3 & P-5 to the Transfer Petition ;

(b) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

FILED BY:
Filed on: 21.08.2018
New Delhi
(SATYAJEET KUMAR)
Advocate for the Petitioner