Crl. Misc. No.M-386 of 2011(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-386 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: January 14, 2011 Rameshwar Sharma ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J.(ORAL) Heard. This petition has been filed by Rameshwar Sharma under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the transfer of criminal complaint No.464/03 dated 08.09.2003 (Annexure P-1) titled as Kamla Vs. Suresh Kumar and others from the Court of Ms. Natasha Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat to some other court at Chandigarh on the ground that there is danger to his life and liberty and that of his family members at the hands of one Ramesh Kaushik, Ex-MLA, former Chief Parliamentary Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and his associates and even the complainant/respondent No.2 is conniving with them. He has contended therein that previously he had filed Criminal Misc. No.1700-M of 2009 for the transfer of this criminal complaint from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh application with better particulars. He had also -1- Crl. Misc. No.M-386 of 2011(O&M) filed criminal writ petition before this Court for protection of life and liberty on account of threat perception, in which a direction was issued to the Addl. Director General of Police, (Crime). On an enquiry, it was found that there was threat perception to his life and liberty. The petitioner is seeking the transfer of the criminal complaint on account of threat perception, for which a direction has already been issued by this court to the State of Haryana and others. Keeping in view the necessary steps to provide appropriate and necessary security to him, another order was passed in his favour on 20.08.2010 vide which a direction was issued that as and when the petitioner informs and intends to visit his village, Khatkar, the security should be provided to him by the concerned police station. It is in that very order that it was observed that apparently there is no danger to the life and liberty and threat perception to the petitioner at other places. In view of that order the threat perception so propounded by the petitioner cannot be made a ground for the transfer of the complaint from Sonepat. Faced with that situation, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that three transfer applications were filed by the petitioner before this Court for the transfer of the civil suits in which notice of motion has already been issued. These civil suits stand at different footing as the personal appearance of the parties before the Court is not required except on the date on which their statements are to be recorded, whereas in the criminal complaint the presence of the petitioner, who has been arrayed as an accused, is required on each and every date. Merely, issuance of notice of motion in these transfer applications cannot be made a ground for transfer of this complaint. -2- Crl. Misc. No.M-386 of 2011(O&M) It appears that the petitioner is mis-using the process of law by not appearing in the said complaint which was filed in the year 2003 and the summoning order appears to have passed somewhere in the year 2007. He avoided the process of law for so many years. The petition is malafide and is dismissed accordingly. 14.01.2011 (GURDEV SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE -3-