Maninder Kaur v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-21254 of 2015(O&M) Date of Decision: November 01, 2017 Maninder Kaur

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Simranjeet Kaur, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Punjab and Jasbir Kaur for transfer of case 'State vs. Maninder Kaur' pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, to any other competent Court at Jalandhar or Kapurthala, arising out of FIR No.98 dated 30.05.2013 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Tarn Taran. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner-accused is daughter-in-law of respondent No.2-

CRM No.M-21254 of 2015 -2complainant. He next argued that challan has been presented before the Court of learned ACJM, Tarn Taran and it be transferred to the Court at Jalandhar or Kapurthala as the petitioner is a lady and having small children to look after and it is inconvenient for her to go to Tarn Taran and further, she has threat to her life and liberty at Tarn Taran. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contested this petition and argued that no threat has been given to the petitioner by anybody. He next argued that it will be inconvenient for all the witnesses to go to other station. He also argued that only apprehension is not sufficient. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further contended that convenience of the witnesses is also to be seen.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and after going through the record, I find that only apprehension has been shown by the petitioners and apprehension is insufficient when it is not supported and corroborated by any material fact. One letter has been written by the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 28.05.2013 i.e. 21⁄2 years back. After that nothing is there to show that ever any threat etc. has been given to the petitioner by anybody. The FIR in the present case has been registered after this representation i.e. on 30.05.2013 and after registration of the FIR, the application has been placed on record.

Furthermore, it is settled law that convenience of the witnesses is also to be seen. In the criminal trial, inconvenience is inconsequential. It is settled law that ordinarily, the criminal case is to be tried where the offence has been committed.

In view of the above discussion, I find that no cogent ground

CRM No.M-21254 of 2015 -3has been given for transferring the case.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

November 01, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No