Shweta Sharma v. Sudesh Kumar And Another




   

 



 

 
     !"#$!$%&$ '#(( )#%*+ ,#%- -.#!/-&$%!$%&$0$) !#% #1 ).#)*+
2 34


 
2 2




 Present : Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Jagpal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab.






   
The petitioner is seeking transfer of the trial pending in the Court at Kharar to a competent Court at Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner has claimed that she has a small child and will have to travel about 300 kilometers and she is not in a position to come alone and it is difficult to pursue the proceedings, therefore, the case may be transferred to Yamun Nagar.

On the last date of hearing the State counsel had informed that the statement of the petitioner had been recorded which was disputed by the petitioner. Today State has filed the copy of the statement made by the complainant. The perusal thereof shows that the examination1in1chief of the complainant had been recorded on RAJ KUMAR 2016.01.25 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document


 





18.07.2014. The complainant has not appeared thereafter and it is stated that the case is being adjourned only for that purpose. The FIR was lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Mullanpur and the trial is going on at Kharar. The petitioner has only to appear once for her cross1examination. It is the counsel who can represent her before the trial court for other dates. It is not a complaint case which would require repeated appearances of the complainant.

In view of the above, I find no reason or justification for transfer the case. The petition stands dismissed. Petitioner is directed to appear in the court below for her cross1examination. Trial Court would give only one opportunity for that purpose.

  



 

  

  

  

  
   
RAJ KUMAR 2016.01.25 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document