CRM-M-34370 of 2014 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-34370 of 2014 (OM)
Date of decision : 10.8.2018

…

Suman Rani
…………….Petitioner

vs.

Deepak Verma and another
……………..Respondents

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Surender Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana.

…

H. S. Madaan, J.

This petition under Section 407 IPC for transfer of criminal

case arising out of FIR No. 38 dated 11.2.2014, registered at Police

Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, under Sections 306, 511, 34, 506 IPC

and FIR No. 39 dated 12.2.2014, registered at Police Station Shivaji

Colony, District Rohtak, under Sections 498A, 354, 506, 34 IPC,

pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, from Rohtak to any other Court of

1 of 4
17-08-2018 08:54:12 :::
CRM-M-34370 of 2014 -2-

competent jurisdiction at District Karnal, for the reason that

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are already pending there, has

been filed by petitioner Suman Rani.

Inter alia in the petition, it is mentioned that a matrimonial

dispute has arisen between the petitioner and her husband Deepak

Verma, arrayed as respondent No.1 in the petition. The petitioner had

lodged FIR no. 39 dated 12.2.2014 for offences under Sections 498A,

354, 506, 34 IPC, against her husband. She had filed a petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner she is resident of

District Karnal and respondent is appearing at Karnal in proceedings

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Father of petitioner is very old. He is

suffering from old age related diseases. Earlier brother of the

petitioner used to accompany her to Rohtak, but unfortunately her

brother has expired. Presently, there is no one to accompany the

petitioner to pursue her case at Rohtak. Even conduct of the

respondent and her family members is volatile and the petitioner

being lonely lady feels insecure. The distance from Karnal to Rohtak

is more than 100 kms. Therefore, the petition be accepted.

Upon notice, respondent No. 1had appeared and filed written

reply contesting the petition, stating that no ground for transfer of the

case is made out.

Respondent No.2, State of Haryana has also filed written

reply to the petition.

I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for respondent No.1 and learned State counsel, besides going

through the record and I find that there is no merit in the petition.

2 of 4
17-08-2018 08:54:12 :::
CRM-M-34370 of 2014 -3-

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Rajbir Singh,

from Police Station Shivaji Colony, District Rohtak, has stated that

after trial the accused have been acquitted in FIR No. 39 dated

12.2.2014 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, vide judgment

dated 30.4.2018. It being so, the petition has become redundant as far

as the said case is concerned. As regards, the other criminal case, the

reason for transfer given is that the Court at Rohtak where that case is

pending is at a distance of 100 kms away from the parental place of

the petitioner and in absence of any male member, it is difficult for

her to come there. However, I find that this reasoning does not

provide justification for transfer of the case. The case being

transferred from the Court having jurisdiction, to a place not having

the jurisdiction, just considering the convenience of petitioner, is not

desirable. When petitioner could attend the dates of hearing in one

criminal case, pending in the Courts at Rohtak, which has since been

decided, she can very well attend the hearing in the other case. The

case in question is a State case which is to be pursued and prosecuted

by the State. The State counsel is there to watch interest of the

prosecution. Appearance of the complainant in the Court on each and

every date of hearing is not necessary and purely her option.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has referred to

authority Rajesh Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and

others 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 259, by the Apex Court. As per

facts of the said case, the accused was residing at Delhi, but was

facing criminal proceedings at Noida (U.P.). He had moved an

application for transfer of criminal proceedings to Delhi Court for the

3 of 4
17-08-2018 08:54:12 :::
CRM-M-34370 of 2014 -4-

reason that he had to travel 52 kms, which was inconvenient. That

prayer was rejected observing that inconvenience is not a valid basis

for transfer of criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for respondent

No.1 has further referred to citation Jyoti Mishra vs. Dhananjya

Mishra 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 542, by the Apex Court, where

wife living at Hyderabad, who had lodged FIR under Section 498-A

IPC against her husband and five others, at Hyderabad, but thereafter

she had shifted to Indore, had moved a case for transfer of petition

to Indore, that petition was dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the

law laid down in the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for

respondent No.1, I do not see any ground to accept the petition. The

same stands dismissed.

( H.S. Madaan )
10.8.2018 Judge
chugh

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

Whether reportable Yes / No

4 of 4
17-08-2018 08:54:12 :::