IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 21849 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- March 31, 2011

Renu … Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. … Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

Present:- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dua, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, A.A.G, Haryana.Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 8.

Gurdev Singh, J (oral)
Crl. Misc. No. 17542 of 2010
Heard.

The reply filed by respondents No. 2 to 8 is ordered to be taken on the record. They are permitted to place on record summoning order Ex.R.1.
Heard.

This petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner, Renu, for the transfer of the case arising out of FIR No. 178 dated 20.5.2008, registered under Section 406, 498-A, 506/34 IPC in Police Station Amabala Cantt titled as “State Vs. Vishal @ Sonu and others” from the Court of Sh. Parveen Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amabla, to some court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

According to the petitioner the application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance is pending in the Court at Jalandhar and the petition filed by Vishal Kumar respondent No.2 under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking the custody of minor child has been ordered to be transferred from the Court at Ambala to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar. The only ground pleaded in the petition for transfer of the case is that the petitioner is deprived of proper financial as well as other means to effectively persuade the said criminal proceedings at Ambala as she is unable to undertake the journey to Ambala while leaving her child behind at Jalandhar and she is only person to take care of the child.

The petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act,1890 was transferred by this Court on the ground that only the Court at Jalandhar had the jurisdiction to try that petition. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by the petitioner at Jalandhar itself. Therefore,the pendency of the other two cases in the Courts at Jalandhar, cannot be a ground for the transfer of the present criminal case. The stress has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is unable to come from Jalandhar to Ambala to attend the criminal case on account of her bad financial position. In civil matters the convenience of the wife is to be seen for the transfer of the suit/petition, but in criminal proceedings that is no ground for the transfer. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Monica Vs. Satish Sharma and another 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 854, for the purposes of transfer, the Court is to see not only the convenience of one party but is to see the convenience of both the parties and witnesses, as well as the large interest of the society. The accused/respondents are resident of Ambala and it was also not disputed that most of the witnesses to be examined are also stationed at that place. Merely on account of the convenience of the petitioner, the case cannot be transferred from Ambala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar, as that will result in inconvenience to the accused and the witnesses. It is pertinent to note that the case is to be pursued by the State and the petitioner is to appear in that case only once as a witness and there is provision in the High Court Rules and Orders for the payment of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance to the witnesses appearing in the criminal cases and those expenses are to be born by the State.

No ground is made out for transfer of the case and the petition is hereby dismissed.
March 31, 2011 (Gurdev Singh)
tripti Judge