Dismissed

Raj Kamal Gupta v. Seema Maheshwari

Delhi HC1 Feb 2024TR.P.(CRL.)/139/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of a domestic violence complaint from Mahila Court, Saket, to Karkardooma Court. The transfer was sought solely due to pendency of other cases between the parties, which the Court found insufficient as no bearing was established between the matters.

What did the court decide?

Petition for transfer under Section 407 Cr.P.C. dismissed; pending application disposed of.

Raj Kamal Gupta Vs Seema Maheshwari — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- TR.P.(CRL.) 139/2023, CRL.M.A. 31580/2023

¶4

RAJ KAMAL GUPTA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.Sagar Saxena, Mr.Parmeet Singh and Mr.Sarthak Pandey, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SEEMA MAHESHWARI ..... Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr.Rajiv Singh and Mr.Amitabh Krishan, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶11

O R D E R % 01.02.2024

¶12

This petition has been filed on behalf of Petitioner under Section 407 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of complaint filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 titled as Ms.Seema Maheshawari v. Sh.Raj Kamal Gupta bearing CC No.633653/2016 (New CC 139/2017), from the Court of learned MM, Mahila Court, Saket, SouthEast District, New Delhi to Karkardooma Court, East District.

¶13

The singular reason given in the present petition is that four other litigations are pending between the parties in Karkardooma Courts, details of which have been enumerated in para 4 of the petition.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the transfer and draws the attention of the Court to order dated 31.08.2023 annexed to the reply to the present petition, wherein the learned MM, Mahila Court has taken a serious note of the fact that Petitioner is taking repeated adjournments and TR.P.(CRL.) 139/2023 page 1 of 2

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 07:23:55

¶16

not arguing the application filed by the Respondent seeking interim maintenance and has also passed an interim order restraining the Petitioner from alienating his property. It is submitted that the Petitioner wants to avoid the compliance of this order and is aware that no further adjournment will be given in the Court and has, therefore, filed the present petition for transfer which is a mala fide conduct. No legal grounds have been made out within the parameters of Section 407 Cr.P.C. to seek transfer besides the fact that the matters before the Karkardooma Courts have no bearing on the case before the Saket Courts.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I do find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the only ground on which transfer is sought is pendency of 4 cases between the parties before the Karkardooma Courts, where one of them is an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and is at an advance stage. It is not the case of the Petitioner that 4 cases have any bearing on the application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act or vice versa . This Court finds no ground to transfer the matter within the contours of Section 407 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Petition stands dismissed. Pending application stands disposed of.

¶19

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the pending cases.

¶20

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 01, 2024 / DU

¶22

TR.P.(CRL.) 139/2023

¶23

page 2 of 2

¶24

Raj Kamal Gupta v. Seema Maheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kamal Gupta v. Seema Maheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Goyal & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vishal Malhotra Vs Nidhi Arora

Vishal Malhotra Vs Nidhi Arora

Manju Bidhuri Vs State and Ors.

Avdhesh Kumar Goel & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

R G Residency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Narinder Kumar Midha & Anr.

The State Vs Sanjeev Khanna and Ors.

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs State of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Harjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ashish and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Yogesh Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Dinesh Chhikara Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Gurjinder Kaur Vs State NCT of Delhi

Gaurav Aggarwal and Anr. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.