Allowed

Madhu Purnima Kishwar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2017TR.P.(CRL.)/3/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed transfer petitions seeking to shift two ongoing trial cases from the Magistrate, Mahila Courts, South District Saket to the Magistrate, Mahila Courts, South-East District. The disputed police station falls within the South-East District jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; trial in FIRs 666/2007 and 403/207 transferred from MM, South District Saket to MM, South-East District.

Madhu Purnima Kishwar Vs State of NCT of Delhi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:14.10.2024 17:07:22 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

MM, MahilaCourts, SouthDistrictSaketto the MM, MahilaCourts, SouthEast District. The case in respect of transfer petition No.3/2017 is FIR No.666/2007registeredat PS - Kotla Mubarakpur,whereasthe case transfer petitionNo.5/2017is FIR No.403/207registeredat the same police station, i.e. PS - KotlaMubarakpur.

¶3

The submissionof the petitioneris that PS - Kotla Mubarakpurfalls within the territorialjurisdictionof the South-EastDistrict. The petitioner had moved applicationunder Section322 Cr.P.C. for transferofthe cases to the concernedCourt. However, on accountof the fact that the petitioneris seeking inter-districttransfer, the applicationsin both the cases have been dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2016 holding that the Court is not competent to transfer the matter to the other district. Consequently,the petitionerhas preferredthe presentpetitionsseekingtransfer.

¶4

Mr. Mukesh Kumar does not dispute the fact that PS - Kotla Mubarakpurfalls withinthe South-EastDistrict. His only submissionis that the cases have been proceeding before the learned MM, Mahila Courts, SouthDistrictSaketsincethe beginningand the jurisdictionover PS - Kotla Mubarakpur was transferred to the South-East District in 2010.

¶5

¶6

Be that as it may, consideringthe fact that the trial in two cases have not yet commencedandthe petitionerhasnowbroughtit to the noticeof the Court that they should rightfullybe tried by the concernedMM in SouthEast District, the petitions are allowed. The trial in cases FIR No.666/2007 and FIR No.403/207registeredat PS - Kotla Mubarakpurstandstransferred from the Court of learned MM, Mahila Courts, South District Saket to the MM, Mahila Courts, South-East District.

¶7

The order be communicated to the concerned courts.

¶8

The petitionsstanddispokd ofinthe aforesaidterms.

Dasti.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

JANUARY 16, 2017

B.S. Rohella

Madhu Purnima Kishwar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Purnima Kishwar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Singh Vs Pushpa Singh

Atul Bhuchar Vs State & Anr.

Dilip Kaushik Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Gopal Singh Vs State & Ors.

Chandni Madaan @ Mehta Vs State & Ors.

Goyl Mg Gases P.Ltd. Vs Ind Synergy Ltd. & Ors.

Goyal Mg Gases P. Ltd. Vs Ind Synergy Ltd. & Ors.

Goyal Mg Gases P. Ltd. Vs Ind Synergy Ltd. & Ors.

Ekluv Bhatia Vs State & Anr.

Ms Babita Mehta Vs State & Anr.

Raj Kumar Kirar Vs v K Bhatnagar

Pradip Pal & Ors. Vs Gnct of Delhi & Anr.

Mohit Yadav Vs State

Madhu Purnima Kishwar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.