Allowed

Smt Nitya Govindaraj v. Sri Vivekanandan

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2023CRL.P/3830/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petitioner sought transfer of a case from Belagavi to Bengaluru under Section 407 Cr.P.C. The court allowed the petition, finding the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for transfer given the witnesses' location and accused's residence.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of C.C.No.424/2016 from II JMFC Belagavi to CMM Bengaluru allowed; petitioner to bear expenses for witnesses from Belagavi.

Smt Nitya Govindaraj Vs Sri Vivekanandan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 3830 of 2021 NC: 2023:KHC:26736

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3830 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NITYA GOVINDARAJ, W/O SRI. VIVEKANANDAN N., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O V. GOVINDARAJU, G6, SRI SAI ENCLAVE 14/5, 9TH MAIN ROAD, RASTRAKAVI KUVEMPU NAGARA, BANGALORE SOUTH - 560 076.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NANDA KUMAR B.L., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. VIVEKANANDAN, S/O. NEELAMEGAM, OCC: COMPUTER SCIENTIST, ADOBE SYSTEM INCORPORATED, RESIDING AT NO. 39/17, MURUGAN NAGAR, EDAMALAPATTI, PUDUR, DISTRICT TRICHY, STATE TAMIL NADU - 620 012.

¶13

NOW RESIDING AT 345 PARK EVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95110-2704, UNITED STATE OF AMERICA.

¶14

SMT. RADHAMANI NEELAMEGAM, W/O SRI. NEELAMEGAM, RESIDING AT NO. 39/17, MURUGAN NAGAR,

¶15

2 - CRL.P No. 3830 of 2021 NC: 2023:KHC:26736

¶16

EDAMALAIPATTI PUDUR, DISTRICT TRICHY, TAMIL NADU - 620 012.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. Z.M. HATTARKI, ADVOCATE AND SRI. A.M. MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ZAHEERABBAS M. HATTARKI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 407 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE II JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI, IN C.C.NO.424/2016 CR.NO.17/2016 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 498A,323,324,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT AS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS, TO THE CMM, BANGALORE AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

seeking transfer of C.C.No.424/2016 pending on the file of the II JMFC, Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Court, Bengaluru.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

None appears for the respondents.

¶26

3 - CRL.P No. 3830 of 2021 NC: 2023:KHC:26736

¶27

This petitioner is the complainant and the respondents are accused in C.C.No.424/2016. A Criminal case came to be registered on the private complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents/accused. It is submitted that the petitioner was residing along with her father at Belagavi as on the date of filing the complaint and subsequently, after retirement of her father, they have been shifted their residence and are residing at Bengaluru.

¶28

The transfer is sought on the ground, (a) that the petitioner is shifted to Bengaluru, there is life threat and she is unemployed; (b) She has no source of income, and she is totally dependent on the pension of her father and she cannot travel for more than 600 kms, without assistance of her parents and she is perusing her Post Graduation Course at Bengaluru; (c) The private witnesses are residence of Trichy.

¶29

Respondent No.1 is residing at USA and

¶30

respondent No.2 is residing in Trichy District of Tamil Nadu. The case is sought to be transferred from Belagavi to Bengaluru. It is also convenient for the respondents to attend

¶31

4 - CRL.P No. 3830 of 2021 NC: 2023:KHC:26736

¶32

the Court at Bengaluru as they are resident of Trichy District in Tamilnadu as it is near to Bengaluru than Belagavi.

¶33

On perusal of the charge sheet, it is seen that CW2, CW3, CW5 to CW7 are residents of Belagavi and CW8 to CW13 are residents of Tamilnadu. CW4, who is the father of the petitioner is also now residing in Bengaluru.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to bear the travel expenses of private witnesses namely CW2, CW3, CW5, CW6 and CW7, who are residing in Belagavi for attending the Court at Bengaluru. As CW8 to CW13 are residents of Tamil Nadu, it is convenient for them to attend the Court at Bengaluru than the Court at Belagavi.

¶35

Even though the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel, they have not chosen to file any statement of objections to the petition.

¶36

Considering all these above aspects, the petitioner has made out a ground for transfer as sought for.

¶37

In the result the following:

¶38

5 - CRL.P No. 3830 of 2021 NC: 2023:KHC:26736

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The petition is allowed .

¶41

ii. C.C.No.424/2016 pending on the file of II JMFC,

¶42

Belagavi, is ordered to be transferred to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru.

¶43

iii. The Petitioner shall bear the expenses of travel

¶44

of the private witness namely CW2, CW.3, and CW5 to 7 from

¶45

Belagavi to Bengaluru for giving their evidence.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

URN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: ABS

Smt Nitya Govindaraj v. Sri Vivekanandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nitya Govindaraj v. Sri Vivekanandan

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

Sri R Nagaraja Reddy Vs Sri K v Kodanda

Jamunarani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chinnappa Vs Sri Chikkamuniyappa

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri M Byregowda

Madhura Prabhu, Vs Chethan Raj

Rohith Vs the State of Karnataka