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 :::