Crl. Misc. No. M- 36206 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 36206 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 21, 2011 Anita and others ---Petitioners versus Anil Kumar ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. M.S.Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. M.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate, for the respondent *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The petitioners, Anital, Sheela, M.B.Mehtab and Ashok, who have been arrayed as accused in Criminal Complaint No. 58 dated 3.2.2010 titled as “ Anil Kumar vs. Anita and others” under Sections 323, 379, 392, 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, pending in the Court of JMIC, Amritsar, have filed this petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the transfer of the same to some Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. Crl. Misc. No. M- 36206 of 2010 -2- They have contended therein that petitioner No. 1 got lodged FIR No. 183 dated 4.6.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar, against the respondent, in which the challan has already been presented before the Court at Jalandhar. Petitioner No. 1 also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for an order directing the respondent to pay maintenance to her, which was decided in her favour, vide order dated 31.8.2010 and she was allowed maintenance at the rate of ` 10,000/- per month and her minor daughter was allowed maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month, but the respondent failed to pay the same and as such, she moved Execution Application before JMIC, Jalandhar, in which a notice has already been issued to the respondent. That application is also pending before the Court at Jalandhar. In order to harass and humiliate them, the respondent has lodged the above said totally false and frivolous complaint against them. He had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the restitution of conjugal rights and a petition under Sections 24 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar, and those were got dismissed. He is practising as an Advocate at Amritsar, and the complaint has been filed frivolously to teach a lesson to them. There is every chance that they would be harassed, in case they visit the Court at Amritsar. It is not safe for them to attend the Court at that place as the respondent is giving threats that in case they would come to Amritsar to attend the hearing, they would face dire consequences. Moreover, there is financial constraint for petitioner No. 1 to attend the Court at that place. In the reply filed by the respondent, he controverted the allegations levelled against him. He pleaded therein that the FIR, so lodged by petitioner No. 1, is false and was registered by the police under the influence of Crl. Misc. No. M- 36206 of 2010 -3- the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 was running a beauty parlour before her marriage in the house of her parents and even after the marriage, she left the matrimonial home and started that business. An ex parte maintenance order was obtained by her and he being a junior Advocate, is not in a position to pay that maintenance allowance to her. She is already appearing in the Court at Amritsar through her counsel Sh. Mandeep Arora, Advocate. He prayed for the dismissal of the petition. According to the counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No. 1, on account of the financial constraint, is not in a position to attend the Court at Amritsar, and that the respondent is already attending the Courts at Jalandhar in two other cases also and he will not be facing any difficulty in case the complaint filed by him is transferred from Amritsar to Jalandhar. The petitioners are having a threat perception at the hands of the respondent, who is a practising as an Advocate, while attending the Court at Amritsar. Thus, according to him, it will be for the convenience of the petitioners, in case the complaint is transferred to some Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. According to the counsel for the respondent, the petition is a mala fide one and the only intention of the petitioners is to prolong the disposal of the complaint, filed by the respondent on true and correct facts. The contention of the petitioners that the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and another petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in the District Court at Amritsar, has not been denied by the respondent. However, the plea of the petitioners that those petitions have been dismissed for want of prosecution, has neither been denied specifically nor by necessary implication by the respondent and, as such, is deemed to have been admitted. That shows that he moved those petitions with Crl. Misc. No. M- 36206 of 2010 -4- a sole motive to harass the petitioners. If he is already attending two other cases in the Courts at Jalandhar, no inconvenience will be caused to him in case the complaint, mentioned in the petition, is transferred to some Court at Jalandhar, as he can attend that complaint along with the other two cases. It will tend to the convenience of the petitioners, in case the complaint is so transferred. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The Criminal Complaint No. 58 dated 3.2.2010 titled as “Anil Kumar vs. Anita and others” is transferred from the Court of JMIC, Amritsar, to the Court of Sh. Sanjiv Joshi, JMIC, Jalandhar. Parties are directed to appear before that Court on 19.5.2011. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE April 21, 2011 PARAMJIT