Allowed

Varinder Bhatia and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Dec 2012CRM-M/1741/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought transfer of their complaint and State cases, filed by the same complainant (Seema Bhatia) before different magistrates at Tarn Taran. The court allowed the application and recalled an order, granting liberty to file a transfer petition before the Sessions Judge or CJM to club the matters for simultaneous hearing.

What did the court decide?

Main petition restored to original number and taken up today; liberty granted to file a petition before Sessions Judge or CJM, Tarn Taran for transfer of both matters to be clubbed.

Varinder Bhatia and Anr. Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M-1741 of 2008 (O&M)

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. 72332 of 2012 and

¶5

CRM M-1741 of 2008 (O&M)

¶6

Date of Decision: December 6, 2012

¶7

Varinder Bhatia and another

¶8

…..Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State of Punjab and another

¶11

…..Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr.D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶15

-.-

¶16

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Misc. application is allowed. The order dated November 7, 2012 is recalled. The main petition is restored to its original number and is taken up today.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioners were facing trial in FIR No. 265 of 2006 in a State case pending in the Court of Additional CJM, Amritsar. Said case was registered on the basis of statement of Seema

¶19

CRM M-1741 of 2008 (O&M)

¶20

[2]

¶21

Bhatia, wife of petitioner No.1. On the same allegations, Seema Bhatia had filed a private complaint annexure P-2 in the Court at Tarn Taran in which the petitioners had been summoned.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now the State case at Amritsar has been transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, at Tarn Taran.

¶23

At present the sole grievous of the petitioners is that since the complaint case and the State case filed at the instance of Seema Bhatia are pending before different Magistrates at Tarn Taran, a direction should be given that both the cases should be ordered to be heard simultaneously by one Magistrate at Tarn Taran.

¶24

Heard. Since the prosecution launched in the State case and the complaint case is at the instance of complainant Seema Bhatia, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that both the case should be decided by one Magistrate. Since the details are not available with the counsel for the petitioners, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a petition before the Sessions Judge or before the CJM, Tarn Taran for transfer of both the matters before same Court to be clubbed or decided simultaneously as convenient to the Court concerned.

¶25

December 6 , 2012 sanjay

¶26

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

Varinder Bhatia and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varinder Bhatia and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aash Mohammad Vs Raj Kumar & Ors.

Nikri @ Seema Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Poonam Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kiran Ghia Vs Surinder Kumar Mittal and Ors.