Crl. Misc. No. 10672 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. 10672 of 2011 Date of decision:- April 26, 2011 Raman Narang ... Petitioner Versus Rakhi Narang & Anr. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Raman Narang, petitioner, for the transfer of the application filed against him by the respondents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), from the Court of JMIC Bathinda, to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak or any other Court far away from the Courts at Bathinda. It has been contended therein that the petitioner filed a divorce petition No.6 of 19.1.2011 against respondent No.1 in the Court of District Judge, Rohtak. That respondent did not appear before that Court, though had keeping a track of the proceedings. She concocted a false story and on baseless allegations filed the above said petition with the sole motive to harass him. The notice in the petition has been issued to him by the JMIC, Bathinda without complying with the provisions of that Act. Even his Crl. Misc. No. 10672 of 2011 -2- family members have been arrayed as respondents unnecessarily. He himself and his family members are at all the times apprehensive of their involvement in some false cases. Respondent No.1 had been sending threatening calls to him, his relatives and friends to face the dire consequences by way of creating untoward incident with the help of parents and the others. That fact is very much apparent from the call details which has been annexed with the petition. He has been able to get some details from the office of S.S.P, Rohtak, which would be substantiate that she had been making hundreds of calls and that is not the conduct and behavior of a normal person. He cannot feel himself free and independent in case he has to put appearance as respondent/accused in the proceedings initiated under the Act by respondent No.1 at Bathinda courts. This petition has been pressed on the grounds that the petition under the Act has been filed as counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner and that he was being given threats on the mobile phone by the respondent repeatedly, which has raised an apprehension in his mind that it will not be safe for him and his family members to appear in the Court at Bathinda. The call details sheet has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P/4. If the contention of the petitioner is correct and these calls were made by respondent No.1 then a doubt is created in the story being put forwards by him. The time duration of some of the calls, recorded therein was more than ten minutes. It cannot be believed that a normal person will be hearing threats for so much long. In that case normal conduct of the petitioner would be to switch off the mobile phone. The present petition appears to Crl. Misc. No. 10672 of 2011 -3- have been filed only in order to avoid the appearance in the petition filed at Bathinda. No ground is made out for transfer of that petition. This petition is dismissed accordingly. April 26, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge