Crl. Misc. No. M-3828 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M-3828 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 7.2.2011 Sher Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. P.S.Hundal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner – Sher Singh, has filed this petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the transfer of case (FIR No. 32/2010 dated 28.7.2010, registered under Sections 307/323/324/326/427/34 IPC, in Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala) pending trial in the Court of Sh. M.S.Virdi, Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur, where trial of the main case relating to the same incident is pending. This FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Gagandeep Singh respondent No.2 against the petitioner and others. The other case relates to FIR No. 90 dated 24.7.2010, registered under Section 302 IPC and according to learned counsel for the petitioner the commitment proceedings are still pending before the Judicial Magistrate. The contents of both the FIRs have been reproduced in this petition. A perusal thereof shows that the origin of both the occurrences was Dasuya (house of the Crl. Misc. No. M-3828 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petitioner). As is made out from the contents of the petition and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner some matrimonial alliance talks for the marriage of Gagandeep Singh-respondent No.2, with the daughter of the petitioner; namely, Nancy were going on, which did not materialise and still respondent No.2 went to the house of the petitioner where he was given beatings by him and others and thereafter he was removed from that place in his own car. Respondent No. 2 has come out with the version that after this Car was brought to the limits of village Rava, District Kapurthala, petitioner and others set car on fire and when he tried to escape from that Car, petitioner and others gave injuries with intention to kill him. However, in the other FIR Paramjit Kaur has come out with the version that in fact respondent No.2 was removed from the house of the petitioner in his car so as to lodge the protest with his parents. According to her on account of the fact that the petitioner suffered humiliation as a result of the act of his own daughter Nancy and respondent No.2, he caused the death of Nancy. It cannot be said that in both the FIRs occurrence is the same. These are two different occurrences though the origin of the same can be said to be one. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Court is to see the convenience of the parties for transfer the case from one Sessions Division to the other and it is a case where the petitioner is facing inconvenience on account of his trial before the Sessions Judge at Kapurthala and it will be for convenience of both the parties that both the cases are tried by one and the same Court. Under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court Crl. Misc. No. M-3828 of 2011 (O&M) -3- is not only to see the convenience of the parties, but also to see the convenience of witnesses and the prime factor is to see the interest of the society at large. The transfer of the case, as prayed in the petition, may be said to be for the convenience of the petitioner, but it cannot be said to for convenience of the parties or the witnesses. I do not find any ground to transfer the case as prayed in the petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. February 7, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge