Crl.Revision No.1310 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.1310 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.3.2008 Jaswinder Kaur ...Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.R.S.Athwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Pannu, AAG,Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.K.K.Goel, Advocate, for the complainant. Vinod K.Sharma, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed against the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawan Shahr vide which application moved by the petitioner for transfer of the case for trial to Ludhiana has been dismissed. FIR No.51 dated 22.6.2005 has been registered under sections 308/323/34 IPC at Police Station Rahon with regard to an incident which is Crl.Revision No.1310 of 2007 2 alleged to have occurred at village Mahal Ghumana, Police Station Kuham Kalan District Ludhiana in which injuries are said to have been caused to Jaswinder Kaur and Rajinder Kaur both of village Mahal Ghumana. They were medically examined at Civil Dispensary Kuham Kalan and Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and on their statement FIR No.42 dated 22.6.2005 was registered at Police Station Kuham Kalan, District Ludhiana. The respondent herein got another FIR registered qua the same incident by alleging that the incident has taken place in village Hussainpur District Nawanshahr falling in the jurisdiction of Police Station Rahon. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr was pleased to record the following findings on the application:- “ I have heard learned counsel for accused, as well as, learned Public Prosecutor for the State beside perusing the challan, as well as the copy of the FIR No.42 dated 22.6.2005 under sections 324/323/504/148/149 IPC, PS Kuham Kalan, District Ludhiana as well as notarized copy of demarcation report finished by Harpal Singh Kanungo on 6.8.2005 along with the presence sheet. It is an admitted fact that FIR No.42 dated 22.6.2005 under section 324/323//504/148/149 IPC relate to the same occurrence which took place on 20.6.2005 at 8.30 AM, registered on 22.6.2005 at 17.35 PM (5.30 PM) at Kuham Kalan, in the area of village Mahal Ghumana, District Ludhiana between the same complainant party as well as the accused party, as also the occurrence which is reported in FIR Crl.Revision No.1310 of 2007 3 No.51 dated 22.6.2005, P.S.Rahon. And this challan relates to the occurrence dated 20.6.2005 at 8.45 AM. Although the complainant party of the present case has stated that the occurrence took place in the area of village Hussainpur, P.S.Rahon, yet perusal of this FIR would reveal that it relates to the occurrence of village Mahal Ghumana, P.S.Kuham Kalan, District Ludhiana, which the present complainant is alleging to be falling within the jurisdiction of village Hussainpur. This FIR No.51 dated 22.6.05, registered on the statement of complainant Naish Palo also talks of the boundary of village Mahal Ghumana, P.S.Kuham Kalan, District Ludhiana and certainly it proves one fact that this occurrence took place on the boundary of villages Hussainpur or village Mahal Ghumana. The accused have also placed on record notarized copy of report of the Kanungo dated 6.8.2005 in which the place of occurrence has been stated to be within the revenue limits of village Mahal Ghumana and not village Hussainpur. From the perusal of both these FIRs, it would reveal that they are counter version of each other, but when it has been prima facie proved on record from the demarcation report that the place of occurrence falls within the revenue limits of village Mahal Ghumana, then certainly this court is not competent to try the case which had occurred within the jurisdiction of Sessions Division, Ludhiana. It is immaterial that according to Crl.Revision No.1310 of 2007 4 the police, the occurrence had taken place in village Hussainpur. It was obligatory for the police to take demarcation report from the Revenue Authorities. Although an attempt was made by the police by getting a casual report from one Major Ram Patwari that the place of occurrence falls within the jurisdiction of village Hussainpur, yet on the contrary there is a detailed demarcation report furnished by Harpal Singh Kanungo dated 6.8.2005 and this report prima facie appears to be a correct report depicting correct place of occurrence.” However, the application moved was dismissed as the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar was of the view that the Court had no jurisdiction to transfer the case to Ludhiana i.e. beyond his jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the findings recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge the case deserves to be transferred to the court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for trial. This plea is strongly opposed by Mr.K.K.Geol, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for transfer of the case to Ludhiana. The contention of the learned counsel for for the respondent is that once learned Additional Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction the application was not competent. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that in the present case in the FIR the incident is alleged to have taken place within Crl.Revision No.1310 of 2007 5 the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Rahon and therefore, there was no reason to seek the transfer of the case to Ludhiana. On consideration of the matter though orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are legal, but, I find force in the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for transfer of case to Ludhiana. Finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not been challenged by the respondent, especially demarcation report of Kanungo identifying the place of occurrence falling within the jurisdiction of Ludhiana. It may further be noticed that qua the same incident another case is pending at Ludhiana and therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the case pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawan Shahr arising out of FIR No.51 dated 22.6.2005 P.S.Rahon is ordered to be transferred to Ludhiana. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawan Shahar is directed to send the file of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 25.4.2008 at 10AM. The transferred case i.e. FIR No.51 dated 20.6.2005 be heard along with FIR No. 42 dated 22.6.2005 registered at Police Station Kuham Kalan District Ludhiana. Petition allowed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 31.3.2008 Judge rp