Dismissed

Maninder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2012CRM-M/1718/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of a criminal case and pending DV petition from Patiala to Karnal, citing safety concerns and locus of cause of action. The court refused transfer, noting respondent convenience and offering police protection as an alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

The petition for transfer was dismissed, but the petitioner was directed to approach the SSF for security if needed.

Maninder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-1718 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-1718 of 2012 Date of decision 06.09.2012.

¶5

Maninder Kaur

¶6

...... Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.. .... Respondent.

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to

¶11

see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.

¶15

Present : Mr. Parminder Singh Advocate for petitioner. Mr. J.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab.

¶16

Mr. Mohd Yusuf, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶17

K.C.PURI, J.

¶18

Maninder Kaur complainant in FIR No.2 dated 24.12.2010

¶19

under Sections 420, 498, 306, 511 IPC registered at Police Station Women Cell, Patiala has sought transfer of the case from the Court of Judicial

¶20

Criminal Misc. No.M-1718 of 2012

¶21

¶22

Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala to Court at Karnal.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that she is a lady and had a child. Petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is pending between the parties at Patiala and petitioner and her father apprehend danger to go to Patiala. It is further alleged that since the dowry articles were given at Karnal and as such under Section 181(4) of the Cr.P.C., the cause of action has also arisen at Karnal. So, prayer has been made for transfer of the case from Patiala to Karnal.

¶24

The State as well as accused in the case have opposed the present prayer. The stand taken by them is that there are 25 witnesses in all in which 21 witnesses belong to Patiala. It would be difficult for the witness to go to Karnal to Patiala. It is further pleaded that parents of the husband of the complainant are old persons and it would not be possible for them to attend the Court at Karnal.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the records of the case.

¶26

The main grouse of the petitioner is that she apprehends danger for going to Patiala from Karnal and that other litigation in the shape of petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act is pending at Karnal.

¶27

Normally the convenience of destitute lady should be considered for transfer of the case but the Court cannot ignore the other attending circumstances. The apprehension of the petitioner can be redressed by issuing direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police to

¶28

Criminal Misc. No.M-1718 of 2012

¶29

¶30

provide security to petitioner if she so desires to appear as witness in the Court at Patiala.

¶31

Otherwise most of the witness are from Patiala and it would be inconvenience to the witnesses to travel distance from Patiala to Karnal for appearing as a witness. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are reported to be old persons and it would be also inconvenience for them to travel from Patiala to Karnal to attend the every date of hearing. Otherwise also, it is a State case and the presence of the petitioner on each and every date is not required. She has to go to Patiala only for the purpose of appearing as her own witness whereas the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have to appear on each and every date of hearing being a criminal case.

¶32

So while deciding application for transfer, the Court has to keep in mind the interest of both the parties and other attending circumstances. The balance tilt in favour of the respondents and not in favour of the petitioner on account of the circumstances discussed above.

¶33

So, in these circumstances, no ground for transfer is made out. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.

¶34

However, it is observed that in case the petitioner so desires, she may approach concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to provide her protection to appear as a witness before the trial Court and if any such application is moved that application shall be considered accordingly by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police.

¶35

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Criminal Misc. No.M-1718 of 2012

¶37

¶38

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict

¶39

compliance.

¶40

September 06, 2012 (K. C. PURI) sv JUDGE

Maninder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maninder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Mandeep Kumar @ Honey Vs State of Punjab

Balwant Singh and Ors. Vs Anoop Singh and Anr.

Kanwarjit Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Others

Ramjan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Khursheed Ahmed Vs State of Haryana

Ram Kishan Vs State of Haryana