Deepak Kaur v. The State Of Haryana

CRM-M-39161-2024 - 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39161-2024 Date of Decision: 12.08.2024 Deepak Kaur .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Arshdeep Singh Sra, Advocate for the petitioner.

NIDHI GUPTA , J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (reads with Section 447 of BNSS) for transfer of the trial in FIR No. 0109 dated 18.09.2019 under Sections 498, 323 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Women Police Station, Jind Haryana titled as 'State of Haryana vs. Manoj Kumar etc.' bearing No. CHI/1621/2020 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind (Annexure P-1) to the Court of Competent Jurisdiction at Sangrur, Punjab. The only ground cited by learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking transfer of the trial in the above-said FIR is that there is no-one to accompany the petitioner-wife from Sangrur to Jind. Heard.

Perusal of the record of the case shows that petitioner was married to respondent No. 2 on 18.06.2017. No child is born out of the wedlock. The present FIR was registered on 18.09.2019 i.e 2 years after marriage. The accused in the FIR are husband/respondent No.2; brother-inlaw/respondent No.3 and parents-in-law/respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner is 75 years of age and DIVYANSHI 2024.08.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-39161-2024 - 2suffering from Asthma as stated in para No. 8 of the petition. Furthermore, it has been stated in the said para that the petitioner also has two younger brothers. As such, the sole ground cited by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking transfer of the trial is not made out. Moreover, as matrimonial home and place of occurrence of alleged offences was Jind, FIR was registered by the petitioner herself at Jind. Even further, it will cause greater inconvenience for the 4 accused/respondents to undertake travel (2 of whom are the aged parentsin-laws), as opposed to the petitioner who can attend Court hearings accompanied by her brothers.

The present petition accordingly stands dismissed. 12.08.2024 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2024.08.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document