Suman v. State Of Punjab And Another
!"# $%&%!'())*)*
( +, * ---
--.
* /
! "#""
$ ! "#""
%
! &
&
'( ) " *""
!
+ + , -+ + *+ + , * (# & # .! / 0+ 1 ! &
/2 # .
3 4
5 5
6 &+
1"
.
+ #!.
& + 4.
! + &
!
8
!
1 ! &
1 !
+ / )& .
'
8"
"
0% %!
'( ) " *""
!
+ + , -+ * (# # .! / 0+ 1 ! &+ !8
0 & !
!
8. & ) "
!
!!
"
/ !
'(
!
/2 #
"
!!
: ) "
$
4.
.
$
%
4 !!
$ & 0%
1"
.
+ #!.
& + 4.
! + &"
"
/ !
! 0& 11 ) " , *""
!
+ + , -+ + *+ , -
(# ! (# .
! /
# 90 ;..& <
& . /!+ *- $
.
& &
!
!!
"
/ !
!
4
!
/2 #
"
"
4 .! 0% .
!& =
%%!+ # .! / 0
4 & 8
> .&.
! & (4 &&
%%!:7( 7 8 =
& ..& . !
!& % 4 & "
/ !
.! ""
4 0
!
/2 #
"
,"
.! $
4 0 0% .
""
8 $
& 9 ! "
) ! $
!
&! %.& . 8 $
%2 !
"
"
"
=
%%!+ / 0
& 8 %.& .
.! 8 $
9
"
*"
%.& ."
/ ! $
.
(4 &&
%%! $
%. .
.! "
/ !
.
"
"
%. 0 (4 &&
%%!
!
/2 #"
?8
"
"
$& 8 $
!
8 !
"
*"
!
/2 #,
"
-"
.
8
.! 4 8 &
"
*"
&
.
0.%
.! $
9
"
*"
!
4 !"
/ !
!
/2 #
"
"
. !
.
!
8
.
.!
/2 # %. 0
0
.$"
( %!+
! .
.! . 0
08 8 $
%2 !
+ .
$
8 "
( %!+ !% .
.
!
$
.
4.
$
9
%
"
*"
*"
*"
$
% ( 8
/2 #-"
.
.
/2 # .
$ $
.
*"
*"
!
"
= $4+
8. % 8
"
*"
$& $
9
"
*"
"
'! $
! .
% .
+ %! $
0 .
1 !
&+ & $ @
%
! "
$ !
"
*"
0% 1 !
&+ &"
/ !
!
/2 #"
= $4+ 1 !
&+ & !. @
.
!
0% #!.
& + 4.
! + &
$
4.
! $!
0 !
1 !"
/ !
0
&+ & "
*"
!
/2 #*
"
= !
!
8.
0 4 & 1"
.
+ #!.
& + 4.
! + &
= A0. %
!
( 4 !
8. ,"
*"
/2 # "
( +
+
!
!
$
& &
& % 8.
.
4$
%! $
8 .
"
*"
+ .
&
0 %
"
"
( 4 . !
.
"
*"
5% ! & + $
.
0
28 4
! "#""
.4 &8
= A0.
8
4
=&
%
"
&8
! 0.
$
!
"
## $%
&
,
"
&
'
&
( )*
+,
'
- "
( ./
!
0 1 '
( 2
!
#( %/
,
,
&
( 3
"
+ ,
4
.56( #
-
!
!
( $
( 67
1
6#8( "
= A0.
8
=&
4 . $
80
8
.4 &8
& 8 0.
$ = A0.
8
(
7: ;
'
* 7
)555) <<
##5A+
.
=#( *
"
!
(
'
'
25#
'
253
, *
"
(>
"
"
( 7
(
(*
(
8( ( =<(?
,
'
@ )555#' )68
= A0.
8
( +
.
=5(A
- ? 0
-
@('
!
/
, "
/
, "
"
?
"
( >
"
"
(
"
(?
(*"
( *
"
( >
"
( B
; '"1 (<
-
6#6)'<.#$
+
C0
"
( '
"
!
( *
(
"
(/
"
(C = A0.
8
D (0
'
, '
?
( )5563')356+
.
=)(>
"
(
"
"
!
'
253
, A
"
(>
"
"
(E
*
"
(>
(*
( .(0
"
(*
"
!
(
'
'
25#
'
253
,
(A
0
)
(>
"
"
( *
8( *F '
D7 '
G
H >
)5'.5#F + =)2(*
!
'
253
, !
). '
!
(*
!
!
('
+
'
"
&
&
I
'
/!
!
&
& !
"
( B. =&
D*'
@
,
,
@
' 7('( J , ' )6
'I ' 7 / @ 7
? K
/ 3$.%23
)5)@ L(-(%32F
.
=))(*
'
-
! (
"
(*
8(
"
8& 0!>
%!
+
8
%! 8 $
.
&
"
*"
$!
+ $
9
&
*"
*"
%!+
0 Dr. Sushil Bodh, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rupnagar, the case was shown to be posted for hearing on 14.09.2022. It is her claim that as the date had been manipulated and the order dated 07.09.2022 had been passed in haste, the petitioner had lost faith in the Court, and therefore, the Trial ought to be transferred.
12.
In the present case, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner-complainant on 18.11.2021. A reply to the said application was submitted on 03.08.2022. On 31.08.2022, the matter has been categorically and clearly adjourned to 07.09.2022. For reasons best known to the petitioner, she chose not to appear on that date and it was only on that count that the application came to be dismissed. Merely because the Reader of the Court had adjourned the case to 09.09.2022 and the order in question dated 07.09.2022 shows that the case had been adjourned for 14.09.2022 in no manner shows manipulation in any date to the prejudice of the petitioner-complainant. The relevant date for hearing the application was 07.09.2022 on which date she was not present in the Court.
Whatever was to transpire subsequent thereto either on 09.09.2022 or 14.09.2022 would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. In the present case, however, the facts do not substantiate the allegations of bias on the part of the Court so as to warrant transfer of the case as prayed for. Interestingly, it appears that the order dated 07.09.2022 has also not been challenged.
13.
Further, the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rupnagar, vide his order dated 21.09.2022 has explained the manner in which the case came to be adjourned to 14.09.2022 from 07.09.2022. He categorically stated in his order that the case had not been adjourned from 07.09.2022 to 09.09.2022 nor was it fixed for consideration on the application because the application was already disposed of on 07.09.2022. A separate show cause notice was, however, issued to the Reader of the Court to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for having fixed the date in the present case as per the CIS System of the Court from 07.09.2022 to 09.09.2022. Further, as per the order dated 30.09.
2022 (Annexure P-9), the learned counsel for the petitionercomplainant had stated at the bar that he had no objection if the case was dealt with by the same Court and that he would file a transfer petition before the High Court if the need arose. If the petitioner had felt strongly about the conduct of the Court, she should have at that very moment raised a strong objection because she was certainly present in the Court as is apparent from a reading of the order, Annexure P-9.
14.
I would hasten to add here that while an aggrieved party certainly has a right to move an application under Section407 Cr.P.C. for transfer of the case in case it feels that a fair and impartial Trial could not be held in the said Court, however, it must also be borne in mind that frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations against the Court have an effect of demoralising the Court. Therefore, the plea for transfer of the case should not be entertained on the mere apprehension of a hypersensitive person who claims apprehension of bias on unsubstantiated allegations and before transferring a case, the Court must find out whether the apprehension appears to be reasonable.
15.
In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same is dismissed.
--
'1 /2)). !
" !
# $
"
# $